Judgments - Supreme Court of India
G. RAVI VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANR.
Madhavan & Ors Versus The State of Tamil Nadu
Notably, the High Court has not considered the issue of quantum of sentence at all, but mechanically proceeded to affirm the sentence awarded by the Trial Court. From the factual position, which has emerged from the record, it is noticed that there was a pre-existing property dispute between the two families. The incident in question happened all of a sudden without any premeditation after PW1 questioned the appellants about their behavior. It was a free fight between the two family Full Judgment
Environment and Consumer Protection Foundation versus Union of India & Ors.
There can be little or no doubt at all that widows in some parts of the country are socially deprived and to an extent ostracized. Perhaps this is the reason why many of them choose to come to Vrindavan and other ashrams where, unfortunately, they are not treated with the dignity they deserve. This is evident from the article that caused this public interest litigation and the compilation of reports that this litigation has generated. It is to give voice Full Judgment
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Versus S. RAVICHANDRAN & ORS
It is for the employer to decide how many avenues of promotion to give to which branch. It is for the authorities to carry out the cadre review and decide whether the ministerial employees working on the ministerial side should be given more avenues of promotion. The court cannot by its decision change the opinion of expert bodies. Full Judgment
SURAJ PAL (D) THR. LR. Versus RAM MANORATH & ORS.
M/s. Sunder Marketing Associates versus State of Haryana & Ors.
J. Vasanthi & Ors. VERSUS N. Ramani Kanthammal (D) Rep. by LRs. & Ors.
Union of India and Ors. Versus Ex LAC Nallam Shiva
To put it differently, in the fact situation of the present case, it is not possible to hold that the punishment of dismissal was vindictive, unduly harsh or disproportionate to the offence committed by the respondent and especially after the Tribunal has positively concluded that failure of the respondent to communicate either to his unit or to the nearest military stationf or around 1½ years was uncondonable. Ordinarily, the Tribunal ought not to interfere with the order of punishment except Full Judgment
K. NAVEEN KUMAR VERSUS COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER & ANR.
Vasant Rao Guhe VERSUS State of Madhya Pradesh
Trial Court on the two major heads of income i.e. pay and agricultural earnings, the learned Trial Court not only of its own embarked on an inquiry to ascertain and compute the figures, it wholly resorted to inferences in calculating the pay for the periods omitted by the prosecution as well as in fixing 60% expenditure from pay towards household needs. Its assessment of agricultural income of the appellant to say the least is also wholly presumptive in absence of Full Judgment
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND VERSUS MAHENDRA SINGH & ORS.
DR. ABHINAV GUPTA VERSUS PROF. G.K. MEHTA ERSTWHILE VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD
SUHAS RAMCHANDRA APTE VERSUS VASANTRAO SHANKARRAO BHOSLE (D) THR. LRS.
ASHA EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ANR. VERSUS NANDKISHORE SHRIKRISHNA WANKHEDKAR AND ANR.
PRAVEER KUMAR PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, GOVT. OF U.P. & ORS. VERSUS REENA KUMARI & ORS.
U. Manjunath Rao Versus U. Chandrashekar & Anr.
State through Central Bureau of Investigation Versus Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava
Framing of charge is the first major step in a criminal trial where the court is expected to apply its mind to the entire record and documents placed therewith before the court. Taking cognizance of an offence has been stated to necessitate an application of mind by the court but framing of charge is a major event where the court considers the possibility of discharging the accused of the offence with which he is charged or requiring the accused to face trial. There are different categories Full Judgment