Filter by Date
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

ASHA VERMAN & ORS. Vs. MAHARAJ SINGH & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 3211 - 3212 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 27, 2015

On applying the principles as laid down in the case of Sarla Verma (supra), 50% of the salary must be added to the income of the deceased towards future prospects of income, which comes to Rs.6,900/- per month, i.e. Rs.82,800/- per annum. Deducting 1/4th for personal expenses and applying the appropriate multiplier taking into consideration the age of Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

DHOLE GOVIND SAHEBRAO & ORS. Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 2485 - 2490 of 2010, Judgment Date: Mar 26, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

VED MITTER GILL Vs. U.T. ADMINISTRATION, CHANDIGARH & ORS

Appeal (Civil), 3194 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 26, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

A. RAGHU, SON OF RAJAIAH Vs. GOVT. OF A.P. & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 5862 of 2007, Judgment Date: Mar 26, 2015

The judgments cited pertain to the particular rule of seniority, which was subject matter of consideration. None of the seniority rules which were taken into consideration is akin to rule 15 which is to be applied for determining the inter se seniority of Sub- Inspectors of Police, in the present case. Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF U.P Vs. CHARAN SINGH

Appeal (Civil), 2381 of 2007, Judgment Date: Mar 26, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

PVR LIMITED Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 10091 of 2010, Judgment Date: Mar 25, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

DASHMESH EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY Vs. PUNJAB URBAN DEVE.AUTHORITY & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 4684 - 4685 of 2005, Judgment Date: Mar 25, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

MOHAN SINGH GILL & ORS. ETC. ETC. Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Appeal (Civil), 3177 - 3178 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 25, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. Vs. GOODRICKE GROUP LTD. & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 9043 of 2003, Judgment Date: Mar 25, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

D.D.A. Vs. GAURAV KUKREJA

Appeal (Civil), 3124 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 24, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF MP Vs. NOMI SINGH & ANR

Appeal (Civil), 3050 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 24, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

STATE OF H P AND ORS Vs. PUNRA DEVI

Appeal (Civil), 34795 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 24, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX, GAUHATI & ORS. Vs. M/S. SATI OIL UDYOG LTD. & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 9133 - 9134 of 2003, Judgment Date: Mar 24, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

M/S MILLENNIUM WIRES P LTD Vs. STATE TRADING CORP. OF INDIA LTD & ORS

Appeal (Civil), 3103 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 23, 2015

It would suffice to say here that injunctions against the negotiating banks for making payments to the beneficiary must be given cautiously as constant judicial interference in the normal practices of market can have disastrous consequences as it affects the trustworthiness of the Indian banks and markets. In the circumstances as narrated above and in light of the settled law on the point of injunction against the banks to honour their Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

RAMESH Vs. HARBANS NAGPAL & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 3105 - 3106 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 23, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

ANIRUDH KUMAR Vs. MUNICIPAL CORP. OF DELHI & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 8284 of 2013, Judgment Date: Mar 20, 2015

Be as that may, this nature of ligation cannot be allowed to be settled between the parties as it involves public interest and violation of rule of law. The running of the Pathological Lab in the building by the respondent-owners amount to violation of the rule of law and affects the public interest, therefore, it is public interest litigation even though the appellant herein Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

AVAS AYUKT,U.P.AVAS EVAM VIKAS PAR.& ORS Vs. BHAGWAN TIWARI & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 3134 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 20, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

VIPULBHAI M. CHAUDHARY Vs. GUJARAT COOP. MILK MARKT. FED. LTD & ORS

Appeal (Civil), 3047 of 2015, Judgment Date: Mar 19, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

DHROPADABAI & ORS. Vs. M/S. TECHNOCRAFT TOOLINGS

Appeal (Civil), 8155 of 2014, Judgment Date: Mar 19, 2015

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

T.NADU TERMD.FULL TIME TEM.LIC EMP.ASSN. Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORP.OF INDIA & ORS.

Appeal (Civil), 6950 of 2009, Judgment Date: Mar 18, 2015

The concerned workmen are the members of the appellant-Associations, Federation of Employees Association, Workers Association and other concerned individual workmen who were working in the branches of the Corporation at various places in the country have raised the existing industrial dispute between the concerned workmen and the management of Full Judgment