Filter by Date
Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
SIRAJMOHMEDKHAN JANMOHAMADKHAN VS. HAFIZUNNISA YASINKHAN & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 695 of 1980, Judgment Date: Sep 14, 1981

Full Judgment

Tags: Maintenance

Supreme Court of India (Single Judge)
NIRANJAN SINGH & ANR. Vs. PRABHAKAR RAJARAM KHAROTE & ORS.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.), 393 of 1980, Judgment Date: Mar 10, 1980

Full Judgment

Andhra Pradesh High Court (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
K.R.K. Vara Prasad vs Union Of India

---- Judgment Date: Feb 12, 1980

Full Judgment

Tags: Interpretation

Supreme Court of India
Suraj Mal Vs State (Delhi Administration)

Special Leave Petition (Crl.), .... Judgment Date: Feb 13, 1979

 In our opinion, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable.  Thus mere recovery by itself cannot prove the charge of the prosecution against the appellant, in the absence of any evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the appellant voluntarily accepted the money.  Full Judgment

Tags: Corruption PC Act

Supreme Court of India
MOHD. IQBAL, AHMAD Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Appeal (Crl.), Criminal Appeal No. 194 of 1973. Judgment Date: Jan 18, 1979

Any case instituted without proper sanction must fail because this being a manifest defect in the prosecution, the entire proceedings are rendered void ab initio. The grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn and sacrosanct act which affords protection to government servants against frivolous prosecutions and must therefore be strictly complied with before any prosecution could be launched against public servants.  The presumption does not arise automatically but only on proof of certain circumstances that is to say, Full Judgment

Tags: Corruption PC Act Prosecution Sanction

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
LILA GUPTA Vs LAXMI NARAIN & ORS

Appeal (Civil), 2585 of 1969, Judgment Date: May 04, 1978

HELD : ‚Äč (1) Examining the matter from all possible angles and keeping in view the fact that the scheme of the Act provides for, treating certain marriages void and simultaneously some marriages which are made punishable yet not void and no consequences having been provided for in respect of the marriage in contravention of the proviso to s. 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 it cannot be said that such marriage would be void. In the instant case, as the Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
State Of West Bengal Etc vs Manmal Bhutoria & Ors. Etc

Appeal (Civil), 1134 of 1973, Judgment Date: May 03, 1977

  HEADNOTE: In May 1967 a case was lodged against the respondent and a Major of the Indian Army who was retired in 1966, alleging that the Major, along with the respondent, had committed offences of conspiracy of criminal misconduct by a public servant in dishonestly abusing his position as a public servant, under s. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. When the case, which was allotted to the Fourth Additional Special Court under s. 4(.2) of the West Bengal Full Judgment

Tags: Interpretation PC Act

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
Palaniappa Gounder vs State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors

Appeal (Crl.), 190 of 1976, Judgment Date: Mar 04, 1977

Full Judgment

Tags: Theft

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
ASHOK DULICHAND VS. MADAHAVLAL DUBE & ANOTHER

Appeal (Civil), 1748 of 1975, Judgment Date: Aug 05, 1975

Full Judgment

Tags: Election

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
NARAYAN GANESH DASTANE VS. SUCHETA NARAYAN DASTANE

Appeal (Civil), 2224 of 1970, Judgment Date: Mar 19, 1975

Full Judgment

Tags: Cruelty Matrimonial Disputes

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
SHIV PRASAD Vs. DURGA PRASAD & ANR

Appeal (Civil), 998 of 1971, Judgment Date: Feb 12, 1975

Full Judgment

Bombay High Court (Single Judge)
Ramkrishna Baburao Maske vs Kishan Shivraj Shelke

CRIMINAL APPEAL, ---- Judgment Date: Feb 01, 1974

Full Judgment

Tags: Interpretation Forgery And Cheating

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
ROSY JACOB Vs.JACOB A. CHAKRAMAKKAL

Appeal (Civil), 1296 of 1972, Judgment Date: Apr 05, 1973

Full Judgment

Tags: Guardianship

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
State Of Bihar vs Deokaran Nenshia

Appeal (Crl.), 208 of 1969, Judgment Date: Aug 24, 1972

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
ROHINI KUMARI VS. NARENDRA SINGH

Appeal (Civil), 657 of 1972, Judgment Date: Dec 02, 1971

Full Judgment

Tags: Divorce

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
KULBHUSHAN KUMAR VS. RAJ KUMARI & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 2564 of 1966, Judgment Date: Oct 20, 1970

Full Judgment

Tags: Maintenance

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
MATHURA PRASAD BAJOO JAISWAL & ORS. Vs. DOSSIBAI N. B. JEEJEEBHOY

Appeal (Civil), 2355 of 1970, Judgment Date: Feb 26, 1970

Full Judgment

Tags: Land

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
RAM CHANDRA ARYA VS. MAN SINGH & ANR.

Appeal (Civil), 379 of 1965, Judgment Date: Dec 08, 1967

Full Judgment

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. LEELA JAIN

Appeal (Civil), 245 of 1962, Judgment Date: Sep 16, 1964

The preamble may, no doubt, be used to solve any ambiguity or to fix the meaning of words which may have more than one meaning, but it can, however, not be used to eliminate as redundant or unintended, the operative provisions of a statute. Full Judgment

Tags: Interpretation

Supreme Court of India (Full Bench (FB)- Three Judge)
Avtar Singh vs State Of Punjab

Appeal (Crl.), 42 of 1963, Judgment Date: Aug 24, 1964

  HEADNOTE: The appellant was prosecuted and convicted for theft of electrical energy under s. 39 of the Indian Electricity Act (9 of 1910). He contended that, as his prosecution was for an offence against the Act it was incompetent, because, it had not been instituted at the instance of any of the persons mentioned in s. 50 of the Act. HELD : The conviction of the appellant must be set aside. The dishonest abstraction of electricity mentioned in s. 39 Full Judgment