Skip to main content

3 Important Supreme Court Cases Pronounced Today [Thursday, October 25, 2018]

1. Dalip Singh v. State of Haryana

Land Law - The court can interfere with the revocation of resumption of land only if the executive has not carried out its duty or acted in violation of the procedure.

Petitioner's Advocate : Kaveeta Wadia
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi


2. Jitendra @ Kalla v. State of Govt of Nct of Delhi

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - For the offence of murder, minimum sentence is ‘life imprisonment’. For that reason, obviously, the High Court could not have modified the sentence to the one already undergone. Therefore, modification in the aforesaid manner as done by the High Court was clearly erroneous.

Petitioner's Advocate : Divya Roy
Respondent's Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri

3. Gopal Jha v. The Honble Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules - Rule 3 - Change of block period - Membership of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) - Resident of an advocate in Delhi - It is time to reconsider as to whether requirement of residence in Delhi or New Delhi in Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules needs to be retained or it should be extended to some areas of neighbouring States which are quite close to the vicinity of the Supreme Court. May be, by fixing a particular radial distance from the Supreme Court, the problem can be tackled. As it would require consideration on so many aspects, this issue can be considered by the Judges' Allotment Committee. It is for the Committee to take a final view on this issue, after taking into consideration all the relevant factors.

Petitioner's Advocate : Petitioner-in-person
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri
Labels:
Location: Tilak Marg, Supreme Court, Mandi House, New Delhi, Delhi 110201, India

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  Section 138 -  failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record    whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.
Post a Comment
Read more

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014] 
2 comments
Read more

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA |  Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - ­8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...
Post a Comment
Read more