This page contains notable observations of different Courts of India and abroad which is a settled law now.
State of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal Secretary & Ors. vs. Seema Sharma [Civil Appeal No. 3892 of 2022] Equal pay for equal work could only be invoked when the employees were similarly circumstanced in every way 18. In Ramesh Chandra Bajpai (supra), this Court further held that it was well-settled that the doctrine of equal […]
M.E. Shivalingamurthy v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Bengaluru [(2020) 2 SCC 768] Principles for discharge under section 227 of the CrPC 17.1. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused. 17.2. The trial Judge
Principles for discharge under section 227 of the CrPC Read More »
R. Unnikrishnan & Anr vs V.K. Mahanudevan & Ors [ 2014 (4) SCC 434] Even erroneous decisions can operate as res-judicata 15. It is trite that law favours finality to binding judicial decisions pronounced by Courts that are competent to deal with the subject matter. Public interest is against individuals being vexed twice over with
Even erroneous decisions can operate as res-judicata Read More »
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre VS. State of Maharashtra [(2011) 1 SCC 694] Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases 90. A great ignominy, humiliation and disgrace is attached to the arrest. Arrest leads to many serious consequences not only for the accused but for the entire family and
Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases Read More »
Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia vs. State of Punjab [(1980) 2 SCC 565] Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment 27. It is not necessary to refer to decisions which deal with the right to ordinary bail because that right does not furnish an exact parallel to the right to anticipatory bail. It is,
Bail is not to be withheld as a punishment Read More »
S. Rama Krishna vs S. Rami Reddy (D) By His Lrs. [2008 (5) SCC 535] Complainant cannot allow a case to remain pending for an indefinite period The conduct of the complainant for the said purpose is of immense significance. He cannot allow a case to remain pending for an indefinite period. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx High
Complainant cannot allow a case to remain pending for an indefinite period Read More »
Kasturi vs. Uyyamperumal and Ors. [(2005) 6 SCC 733] Who is a necessary party? It is now clear that two tests are to be satisfied for determining the question 3 who is a necessary party. Tests are – (1) there must be a right to some relief against such party in respect of the controversies
Who is a necessary party? Read More »
K. Meghachandra Singh & Ors. vs. Ningam Siro & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 8833-8835 of 2019] Retrospective seniority should not be granted from a day when an employee is not even borne in the cadre 29. Before proceeding to deal with the contention of the appellants’ Counsel vis-à-vis the judgment in N.R. Parmar (Supra), it
Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Ors. vs. Owners and Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and Ors. [AIR 2006 SC 1828] Plaint cannot be rejected on the basis of the allegations made by the defendant in his written statement or in application for rejection of the plaint 8. …… The case is not so much on the
Variety Emporium vs. V.R.M. Mohd. Ibrahim Naina [(1985) 1 SCC 251] Personal requirement for ejectment of a tenant must continue to exist on the date when the proceeding is finally disposed 16. No authority is needed for the proposition that, in appropriate cases, the Court must have regard to events as they present themselves at
