case_details_and_judgements stringclasses 10
values | summary stringclasses 9
values |
|---|---|
cellaneous Petition No. 32937 of 1988.
345 IN Writ Petition No. 12 183 of 1985.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India).
K.K. Venugopal, Mrs. Jayashree Wad and Mrs. Aruna Mathur for the Petitioners.
K. Parasaran, Attorney General, A.K. Ganguli, P. Parmes waran and K. Swamy for the Respondents.
The followin... | On a civil miscellaneous petition for clarification of this Court 's judgment dated 4th November, 1988, the Court.
HELD: The assessable value of the processed fabric would be the value of the grey cloth in the hands of the processor plus the value of the job work done plus manufacturing profit and manufacturing expens... |
: Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 1620 of 1980.
From the Judgment and order dated 13 11 1979 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No 1310 of 1979.
Pramod Swarup for the Petitioner.
M. C. Bhandare and M. N. Shroff for the Respondent.
The order of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER J. We were not happy at t... | In so serious a crime as murder where so severe a sentence as life imprisonment has been inflicted by the trial court and the appeal is as of right, the High Court must indicate in a reasoned judgment that it has applied its mind to the material questions of fact and law.
A judgment may be brief but not a blank especi... |
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2391 of 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.86 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 439/82.
S.B. Bhasme and A.S. Bhasme for the Petitioners.
A.K. Gupta for the Respondents.
The Judgment.
of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.
The High Court of Bombay dismiss... | The petitioners participated in the arbitration without demur.
When the award was made in 1981 no objection was taken by them that it was bad being unreasoned one.
The High Court dismissed the challenge to the award.
In the special leave petition it was contended for them that relevant documents had not been taken i... |
ivil Appeal No. 4031 of 1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 14.4.1988 of the Patna High PG NO 867 PG NO 868 Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1923 of 1988.
R.K. Jain, R.P.Singh and Y.D.Chandrachud for the Appellant.
U.S. Prasad for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.
Special... | The appellant has bid in an auction of Beni Country Liquor Shop in the District of Samastipur and was given the shop being the highest bidder but he failed to deposit the bid money in time.
The Collector, Samastipur by an order cancelled the bid and black listed the appellant.
He then moved the High Court against the... |
tition (C) Nos.
13748 84 of 1984.
With Writ Petition (c) Nos.
1580626 of 1984.
(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. ) 48 N.N. Keshwani and R.N. Keshwani for the Petitioners.
O.P. Sharma, Girish Chandra, C.V. Subba Rao and Miss section Relan for the Respondents.
The following Order of Court was delivere... | The petitioners, Air Conditioned Coach Incharges At tendants in Northern Railway, contended in their writ peti tions that their counterparts in Western, Central and East ern Railways were being paid overtime allowance for extra duty hours exceeding 96 hours in two weeks, and sought a direction to the Union of India and... |
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11638 of 1986 From the Judgment and Order dated 12th September, 1986 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in M.P. No. 2845 of 1986.
B.K. Rawat, M.K. Dua, Aman Vachher and S.K. Mehta for the Petitioners.
1003 The following Order of Court was delivered ORDER Since this petition is filed a... | In a petition for special leave against an interim order of the High Court, ^ HELD: (1) As the special leave petition is filed against an interim order of the High Court, this Court does not propose to interfere.
[1003B] (2.1) The practice of granting of temporary permits repeatedly to ply stage carriages for short pe... |
Civil Appeal No. 322 of 1970.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 25 3 1969 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 1195 of 1970.
U.R. Lalit, P.H. Parekh and Miss Manik Tarkunde for the Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KOSHAL J.
A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Rangam to the effect ... | If the certificate granted by the Court under sub clauses (a) and (c) of clause (1) of Article 133 of the Constitution, as it then stood, did not conform to legal requirements in as much as it did not specify the substantial question of law which, according to High Court, required determination and no reasons in respec... |
ecial Leave Petition (C) No. 5628 of 1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.1.1988 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 9 18 of 1987.
P.P. Rao and Shakeel Ahmed for the Petitioner.
S.C. Maheshwari, P.K. Chakravarti, Ms. Sandhya Goswami and V.K. Bhardwaj for the Respondent.
The follow... | Applying the principle enunciated in Atma Ram Mittal vs Ishwar Singh Punia; , , this Court dismissed the special leave petition, and, HELD: 1.1 The exemption would apply for a period of ten years and will continue to be available until suit is dis posed of or adjudicated.
[121H] 1.2 If the petitioner fails to file an ... |
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2391 of 1987.
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.10.86 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No. 439/82.
S.B. Bhasme and A.S. Bhasme for the Petitioners.
A.K. Gupta for the Respondents.
The Judgment.
of the Court was delivered by SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.
The High Court of Bombay d... | The petitioners participated in the arbitration without demur.
When the award was made in 1981 no objection was taken by them that it was bad being unreasoned one.
The High Court dismissed the challenge to the award.
In the special leave petition it was contended for them that relevant documents had not been taken i... |
ition (Crl.) No. 2989 of 1983.
(Under article 32 of the Constitution) R.L. Panjwani, Manoj Saxena and R.D. Upadhaya for the petitioners.
The Order of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, C.J, The question raised in this petition is whether the Government can ask the police not to enter a place of worship, even if ... | HELD: It is the executive which has to take a policy decision as regards the steps to be taken in a given situation, after taking into account the demands of the prevailing situation.
It is not that the police should be silent spectators to wanton destruction of life; but the Court cannot commend that the police must ... |
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 2