2001 1 Scc564 - Judgment Search Results

Pradeep Ram Vs. The State of Jharkhand

Court: Supreme Court of India

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 816-817 OF2019(arising out of SLP(CRL.) … Court relying on judgment of this Court in Prahlad Singh Bhati Vs. NCT, Delhi and Another, (2001) 4 SCC280held that on a serious change in the nature of the offence, the accused becomes disentitled to the liberty

Commnr. Of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. M/S. Dilip Kumar and Company

Court: Supreme Court of India

of Customs and Central Excise, Guntur and Ors. V. Surendra Cotton Oil Mills and Fertilizers Co. and Ors., 2001 (1) SCC578[hereinafter referred as ‘Surendra Cotton Oil Mills Case’ for brevity]., distinguished Sun Export Case (supra), which mandated this … examine the correctness of the ratio in Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, (1997) 6 SCC564[hereinafter referred as ‘Sun Export Case’ for brevity]., namely the question is ­ What is the interpretative rule to

Indore Development Authority Vs. Shailendra (Dead) Through Its Lrs. An ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short, ‘the Act of 2013’) and section 31 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act of 1894’).2. In Yogesh Neema & Ors. v. State of M.P. & Ors. [S.L.P. … of 2017]. correctness of the decision of Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki [2014 (3) SCC183 has been doubted. The main issue is interpretation of section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and

Justice k.s.puttaswamy(retd) Vs. Union of India

Court: Supreme Court of India

is beyond question. It is an objective which is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of the 276 2001 (1) SA545(CC) 168 PART K right to privacy of an individual in certain circumstances….On the other hand, state officials … were read even more restrictively as interpreted by the majority in ADM, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla [(1976) 2 SCC521. The decision in ADM, Jabalpur [(1976) 2 SCC521 about the restrictive reading of right to life and liberty

Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal and Ors. Etc.

Court: Supreme Court of India

Reported in: (2020) 8 SCC129; [2020] 3 SCR 1

or rendered unavailable (vide Nedungadi Bank Ltd. v. K.P. Madhavankutty, (2000) 2 SCC455 Balbir Singh v. Punjab Roadways, (2001) 1 SCC133 Asstt. Executive Engineer v. Shivalinga, (2002) 10 SCC167and S.M. Nilajkar v. Telecom Distt. Manager, (2003) 4 SCC27. … Court stated that possession and occupation in common parlance may be used interchangeably, but in 162 (1979) 4 SCC274163 (2004) 3 SCC684law possession amounts to holding property as an owner, while to 223 occupy is to keep

Kalpana Mehta and Ors. Vs. U.O.I. and Ors.

Court: Supreme Court of India

on 07.05.1993 [28]. AIR1958SC538[29]. (2001) 6 SCC181[30]. See the Janakiraman Committee’s first interim report, May 1992, p.1. [31]. [2001]. 1 A.C. 395 … judicial pronouncements on that question were succinctly analysed by this Court in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala[29]., SCC paras 29-34. Para 34 of the judgment inter alia reads:“34. … In our view, the courts, civil or

Manoj Vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh

Court: Supreme Court of India

6 SCC181:2001. SCC (Cri) 1048]. .202. In Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab [(2009) 1 SCC441: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 523]. this Court specifically stated that a concept of fair investigation and fair trial are concomitant to

M/S Shaha Ratansi Khimji and Sons Vs. Proposed Kumbhar Sons Hotel P.Lt ...

Court: Supreme Court of India

there seems to be inconsistency in the view taken by this Court in Vannattankandy Ibrayi Vs. Kunhabdulla Hajee [(2001) 1 SCC564 and T.Lakshmipathi & Ors. Vs. R.Nithyananda Reddy & Ors. [(2003) 5 SCC150. Leave granted. The matter shall … to be inconsistency in the view taken by this Court in Vannattankandy Ibrayi Vs. Kunhabdulla Hajee [(2001) 1 SCC564 and T.Lakshmipathi & Ors. Vs. R.Nithyananda Reddy & Ors. [(2003) 5 SCC150. Leave granted. The matter shall be

State of Karnataka Vs. m/s.united Breweries Limited

Court: Karnataka

1 R IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE14H OF SEPTEMBER2015PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEET … commercial commodity by subjecting it to some processing. (c) In Khatiawar Industries Ltd Vs. Jaffrabad Municipality, (1979) 4 SCC56 the question was whether salt manufactured by the appellant therein outside the octroi limits and brought within those

Sita Ram Vs. State of Haryana and anr.

Court: Supreme Court of India

SHARMA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed Non-Reportable judgment is placed on the file) ----------------------- [1]. [2]. (2001) 7 SCC545[3]. [4]. (2014) 3 SCC183[5]. [6]. (2014) 6 SCC564[7]. [8]. (2014) 6 SCC589[9]. [10]. (2014) 6 SCC586[11]. [12]. Civil … the case are briefly stated hereunder:- 3. The appellant started his factory for manufacturing fireworks in the year 1990 at Village Kasar, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar and was granted a licence by the Chief Controller of Explosives