Conviction under POCSO Act cannot be sustained where victim and key witness fail to identify accused in Court.
Mandamus directing absorption of a lecturer is unsustainable when State was not impleaded and college is unaided.
A Single Judges order in civil contempt rejecting a compliance affidavit on merits is appealable via an intra-court Special Appeal.
A bona fide student cannot be denied degree verification due to universitys clerical omissions and minor marks discrepancies.
Professional course fees in self-financing institutions must be notified before admissions and cannot be revised midstream for admitted students.
Rejecting reserve H1 bids solely because bidders previously surrendered same mining contracts at higher rates is arbitrary.
A gift deed executed by a donor conveying ancestral land after surrendering his share in a compromise decree is void.
A third-party claim in execution cannot be dismissed merely for quoting a wrong CPC provision without inquiring into title.
Impugned order declaring Petitioner liable for reassessment concerning a property purchase of Rs. 83,87,386 was deemed outside jurisdiction and set aside.
State Election Commission (SEC) failed to engage in required consultation with Government regarding delimitation of Wards, leading to publication of an arbitrary notification dated 09.09.2026.
Victims testimony is credible and should be accepted, as circumstances raised do not justify dismissing her evidence hence, Trial Courts judgment is set aside and Respondent is convicted under several sections of Indian Penal Code and sentenced of ten years in rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,00,000.
Petitioners challenges regarding dispossession related to another case (Regular Civil Suit No.95 of 2018) are not admissible in present suit, as they should be resolved within context of that suit hence, Trial Court rightly held that proposed amendments are not permissible in this case.
Respondent nos. 2 to 4 directed to acquire land admeasuring 26R in Survey No.50/01 belonging to petitioner by passing an award under Act and paying compensation to petitioner within three months.
Complainant has not given any material to demonstrate actual payment of ₹ 17, 50, 000/- made to accused in any manner, even purpose of such payment is not specified hence, right of accused to cross-examination complainant and his witnesses cannot be curtailed.
Under Prevention of Money Laundering Act, prosecution is not permissible without an active predicate offence, which is rendered non-existent following a discharge or quashing of FIR, thereby restricting Enforcement Directorates jurisdiction.
Applicant, a foreign national with valid passport until 15.10.2028, is a first-time offender without prior criminal records, except for current conviction hence, impugned orders and judgment is suspended and Applicant, is directed to be released on bail, subject to specific conditions.
Petitioner lost the confidence of majority of directors, indicating that no-confidence motion against him is valid and procedure followed in convening meeting for no-confidence motion is affirmed as legal and proper.
Petitioner was not obligated to refund any excess payments, which dates back to 2005 and 2015 and requiring such a refund would cause undue hardship.
Petitioner wrongfully withdrew compensation without disclosing tenants rights hence, order requiring petitioner to refund amount did not modify original Award and found no grounds to interfere with order in its Writ jurisdiction.
Appellate ruling was erroneous, especially considering that respondent had barred his elderly father from accessing his own property for an extended period and it was wrong to cancel financial aid and maintenance initially granted by first authority.
You were logged out of this device because this account is also signed in on another device, and that device asked this one to sign out.
Tap the button below to open the PDF in your device's default viewer