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
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
Introduction This a case of conspiracy against the Raja Nand Kumar, this was set up indirectly by the Governor General Warren Hastings and Chief Justice Impey of the Supreme Court of Calcutta. The general had enmity by Nand kumar, he fought battle of Plessey by the side of king. He was admired by the kings,
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors Author : Alisha Rahman Bench: Y.V. Chandrachud, (Cj), P.N. Bhagwati, A.C. Gupta, N.L. Untwalia, P.S. Kailasam Case brief: Section 4 & 55 of 42th amendment of constitution damage the basic structure of constitution. In the Minerva Mills case, the supreme court provided key classifications
Citation: 1963 AIR 649, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 439 Bench: Sinha, Bhuvneshwar P.(Cj), Gajendragadkar, P.B., Wanchoo, K.N., Gupta, K.C. Das, Shah, J.C. Facts An order Mysore government issued under article 15(4) reserved seats for admission to the state medical and engineering colleges. On July 26, 1958 the state issued an order that all the communities
CITATION- (1895) ILR 18 MAD 88BENCH- A J COLLINS, SHEPHARDDATE- 18 OCTOBER 1894 BACKGROUNDduring this case, the appliance of section 70 of the Indian Contract Act (1872) was in question. Section 70 of the Act speaks about the requirement of person enjoying advantage of non-gratuitous act. consistent with this section, a person who enjoys the
THE AYODHYA RAM MANDIR CASE INTRODUCTION The Ayodhya dispute was a political, historical, and socio religious debate in India. The dispute that stretches back more than a century is one of the thorniest court cases and had its presence in almost every political statement that was made. The dispute was over a plot of land
