Citation: AIR 1964 Cal 209 Bench: B Mukherji FACT This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 13,031.87 nP. Office worker of firm , Sohan Lal entered into negotiation on behalf of the firm with Snow White Ltd for transferring their goods. Goods were not delivered but were unjustifiably discarded and turned to their own
Author : Alisha Rahman Citation: AIR 1987 AP 171 Case briefing. The law used is the enjoyment of the ownership rights subjective to the requirements of the development plan. The court held that using of that land by income tax department and LIC is illegal and contrary to law. The Apex court after hearing both
Author : Alisha Rahman Case briefing. Magistrate found the accused guilty of offence under section 469, 509 IPC and 67 of IT act 2000. He was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under 469 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, one year simple imprisonment and Rs.500 fine under section 509 IPC
Citations: (1981) 2 SCC 362, 1981 2 SCR 1 Bench: Y Chandrachud, A Sen, P Bhagwati, V Tulzapurkar, V K Iyer INTRODUCTION In the Waman Rao Case, the Supreme Court again reiterated the Basic Structure doctrine. The Waman Rao case held that amendments made to the 9th Schedule until the Kesavananda judgment are valid, and
Citation AIR 1978 Delhi 296, 14 (1978) DLT 18 b, 1978 RLR 525 Introduction It is a case of Restitution of Conjugal Rights which fall under the section 9 of HMA 1955. The wife was working as a headmistress in government school in Punjab. At the time of her marriage, she had been working for
CITATION- AIR 1966 SC 43 BENCH- K. SUBBARAO, J.C. SHAH, R.S. BACHAWAT JJ. FACTS INVOLVED – Appellant was dealer in food grains at Dhar in Madhya Pradesh. He was prosecuted in the court of ADM, Dhar for having stock of 885 Maunds & 21/4 seers of wheat for sale without a proper licence for the
Vishaka & Others vs State of Rajasthan Bench of Judges CJI, SUJATA V. MANIHAR, B.N.KIRPAL Case brief This case is related to the evil of sexual harassment of women at working place. This case is the landmark case in the history of the sexual harassment that is decided by the Supreme Court. Sexual harassment means
CITATION- AIR 1994 SC 1918 DECIDED ON- 11.03.1994 BENCH- S.R. Pandian, A.M. Ahmadi, Kuldip Singh, J.S. Verma, P.B. Sawant, K. Ramaswamy, S.C. Agrawal, Yogeshwar Dayal and B.P. Jeevan Reddy, JJ. CASE INTRODUCTION-This case is considered to be a landmark judgement in the history of India. Till the judgement of the case As per the provision of Article 356
Citation : W. P. (Crl.) No. 76 of 2016 Bench Dipak Misra, CJI; Rohinton Fali Nariman, J.; A. M. Khanwilkar, J; D. Y. Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra, J Facts The central issue of the case was the constitutional validity of section 377 of IPC, 1860 insofar because it applied to the consensual sexual conduct of adults of an equivalent sex privately. During
Citation : 1985 AIR 945, 1985 SCR (3) 844 Bench: Y.V. Chandrachud, D.A Desai, O Reddy, Venkataramiah Chinnappa, Rangnath Misra Facts – The appellant married to the respondent in 1932 and five children were born out of the wedlock. The appellant drove the respondent out of matrimonial home in 1975. In April 1978, the respondent
