(1)
C.S. VENKATESH ........Appellant Vs.
A.S.C. MURTHY (D) BY LRS. AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
07/02/2020
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Facts:
The case involves a dispute between C.S. Venkatesh (the appellant) and A.S.C. Murthy (the plaintiff), who filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement of reconveyance concerning a property in Bangalore. The plaintiff also sought a declaration that a sale deed executed by him in favor of the defendants was null and void. The plaintiff's claim was based on the contention that...
(2)
CANARA BANK ........APPELLANT Vs.
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LIMITED AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT D.D
06/02/2020
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Facts:
This case involves a tripartite agreement between farmers, Canara Bank, and a cold store, wherein farmers' agricultural produce was stored. The cold store obtained insurance coverage for these goods from M/S United India Insurance Co. Ltd. The farmers had hypothecated their produce to the bank, and loans were issued based on this collateral. A fire incident led to the destruction of ...
(3)
CHHOTA AHIRWAR ........Appellant Vs.
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH ........Respondent D.D
06/02/2020
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Facts:
The case revolves around an incident where the accused appellant and the main accused, Khilai, were involved in a quarrel with the complainant. During this altercation, Khilai fired a country-made pistol, injuring the complainant. The prosecution alleged that the accused appellant had a common intention with Khilai to murder the complainant.
Issues:
Whether there was a...
(4)
VUNDAVALLI RATNA MANIKYAM & ANOTHER ........Appellant Vs.
V.P.P.R.N. PRASADA RAO ........Respondent D.D
06/02/2020
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Facts:
The original owner of a piece of land agreed to sell it to the respondent via an agreement to sell. After an initial payment, the agreement allowed for the execution of the sale deed within a specified timeframe. However, during this period, the government initiated land acquisition proceedings for the property. The respondent challenged the acquisition, and it was eventually quashed. Su...
(5)
M/S. EDELWEISS ASSET CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LIMITED ........Appellant Vs.
R. PERUMALSWAMY AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
06/02/2020
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
FACTS:
The case involved a dispute between M/S. Edelweiss Asset Construction Company Limited (appellant) and R. Perumalswamy and others (respondents). The dispute centered around the acquisition of land by the State of Tamil Nadu and subsequent claims by the first respondent.
WS Industries (India) Ltd. (WSIL), the appellant in Civil Appeal No 1319 of 2017, acquired land, and the State Govern...
(6)
GOVINDA CHANDRA TIRIA ........Appellant Vs.
SIBAJI CHARAN PANDA AND O THE RS ........Respondent D.D
05/02/2020
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
FACTS:
The case involves the appointment of respondent No.1 as a Lower Division Clerk (LDC) Group C in the Ministry of Environment & Forests, Government of India. Initially appointed on a deputation basis, respondent No.1 sought permanent absorption on a transfer basis, which was eventually approved. The terms of absorption specified that he would be treated as a fresh appointee in the Easter...
(7)
BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED AND OTHERS ........Appellant Vs.
SHYAM KISHORE SINGH ........Respondent D.D
05/02/2020
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Facts:
The respondent was employed by Bharat Coking Coal Limited.
The date of birth in the respondent's service record was recorded as March 4, 1950.
The respondent indicated the same date of birth in various official forms.
In 2009, just before retirement, the respondent requested a change in his date of birth in the service records.
The appellant company verified the date of b...
(8)
MOHAMMADE YUSUF AND OTHERS ........Appellant Vs.
RAJKUMAR AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
05/02/2020
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Facts:
The case involved a dispute over a compromise decree dated October 4, 1985, concerning a piece of land.
The trial court held that this compromise decree was not admissible in evidence due to a lack of registration.
The High Court upheld the trial court's decision.
Issues:
Whether the compromise decree dated 04.10.1985 was required to be registered under Secti...
(9)
KAJAL ........Appellant Vs.
JAGDISH CHAND AND OTHERS ........Respondent D.D
05/02/2020
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Facts:
In this case, a minor victim was traveling on a tractor with her parents when it was hit by a truck. The victim sustained serious injuries, including damage to her brain, resulting in a 100% disability. The disability certificate indicated a severe impairment, with an I.Q. less than 20% of a child of her age and a social age equivalent to that of a 9-month-old child.
Issues...