(1)
SUNIL SIKRI .....Appellant Vs.
GURU HARKRISHAN PUBLIC SCHOOL AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D
28/07/2022
Delhi School Education Rules 1973 - Rule 121 - Disciplinary Proceedings - The Tribunal's power to award back wages upon reinstatement of an employee was contested - High Court held that Rule 121 does not confer express power on the Tribunal to award back wages, limiting such power to the managing committee - Supreme Court analyzed the statutory provisions and concluded that the Tribu...
(2)
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER .....Appellant Vs.
B.R. MURALIDHAR AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
28/07/2022
Constitutional Law – Article 31C Protection – The State of Karnataka contended that Section 20 of the Karnataka Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1973, enjoys immunity under Article 31C of the Constitution – The High Court ruled that Article 31C protection was unavailable as the Act was enacted before the 44th Amendment – The Supreme Court emphasized the need to c...
(3)
MRS. AKELLA LALITHA .....Appellant Vs.
SRI KONDA HANUMANTHA RAO AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D
28/07/2022
Family Law – Right of Natural Guardian – Mother, as the only natural guardian after the father's death, has the right to decide the surname of her child and give the child in adoption – High Court's direction to restore the child's original surname was overturned – Mother's decision to change the surname to that of her new husband is valid and aligns with th...
(4)
SHIV KUMAR SHARMA .....Appellant Vs.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN .....Respondent D.D
28/07/2022
Corruption and Falsification of Accounts – Insufficient Evidence – Appellant, a public servant, was convicted for offences under Section 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 15 of the PC Act and Section 477A of IPC – Alleged manipulation of records and wrongful gain not supported by material evidence – Investigation revealed no criminal charges against the appellant – Convi...
(5)
SANJAY PURAN BAGDE .....Appellant Vs.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA .....Respondent D.D
28/07/2022
Criminal Law – Common Intention – Section 34 IPC – Appellants Sanjay Puran Bagde and Rajratna @ Nandu Bagde were convicted for holding the deceased while co-accused Manoj Puran Bagde and Puran Sakharam Bagde assaulted the deceased with axes – High Court reversed the trial court's acquittal, finding common intention based on their participation and presence at the crime ...
(6)
HARYANA STATE INDUSTRIAL AND INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. AND OTHERS .....Appellant Vs.
MR. DEEPAK AGGARWAL AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
28/07/2022
Land Acquisition – Initiation of Proceedings – Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act – Supreme Court held that for the purposes of Section 24(1) of the 2013 Act, the land acquisition proceedings under the L.A. Act shall be deemed to have been initiated with the issuance and publication of the Section 4(1) notification in the official gazette – The Court emphasized that this interpr...
(7)
DAXABEN .....Appellant Vs.
CAPITAL FIRST LTD. AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
27/07/2022
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 – Section 14 – Possession of Secured Asset – Supreme Court held that the District Magistrate and Chief Metropolitan Magistrate as mentioned in Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act include Additional District Magistrate and Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate – This interpreta...
(8)
PRAHLAD .....Appellant Vs.
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANOTHER .....Respondent D.D
27/07/2022
Criminal Law – Reversal of Acquittal – Evidence Assessment – High Court reversed the acquittal of the appellants, convicting them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC based on the testimony of an eyewitness (P.W.2) and the recovery of incriminating items – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence and the credibility of witnesses, especially...
(9)
NEMAI CHANDRA KUMAR (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS .....Appellant Vs.
MANI SQUARE LIMITED AND OTHERS .....Respondent D.D
27/07/2022
Thika Tenancy – Definition and Scope – Interpretation of ‘thika tenant’ under the Calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949, and subsequent statutes – Supreme Court held that the term 'any structure' includes both kutcha and pucca structures – The Court examined legislative amendments and their retrospective effect, and the implications on tenancy and landlord...