Wednesday, 29, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 
THANGASAMY Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 151 SC

Headnote :

Sections 279, 337 (three counts), and 304-A (four counts) of the Indian Penal Code were invoked. It was argued that the High Court overlooked parts of the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5. The Supreme Court found that the appellant was guilty of rash and negligent driving, resulting in the deaths of fou...
WESTERN COALFIELDS LTD. Vs COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE TRICHY/MADURAI

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 152 SC

Headnote :

The Central Excise Act of 1944, Section 11B, addresses the issue of whether the six-month limitation period applies when a buyer claims a refund of central excise duty that was paid under protest by the manufacturer, M/s. Fenner (India) Ltd. The Supreme Court ruled that the appellant, who purchased...
LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD. Vs SLEEPWELL INDUSTRIES CO. LTD

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 153 SC

Headnote :

 According to Section 48 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner\'s application should be dismissed due to the principle of constructive res judicata. The court emphasized that there is limited scope for interference regarding foreign awards un...
PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHIMLA Vs M/S. AARHAM SOFTRONICS

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 154 SC

Headnote :

The Supreme Court, referencing the Finance Act of 2003 and the Finance Act of 1991, notes that if a significant expansion occurs as defined in clause (ix) of sub-section (8) of Section 80-IC by an undertaking or enterprise within the specified 10-year period, the year in which this substantial expan...
SMT. SUNITA DEVI AND ANR. Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 155 SC

Headnote :

The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 302, 109 in conjunction with Section 34. The petitioners submitted this writ petition seeking the establishment of a court-monitored investigation/Special Investigation Team (SIT) to re-examine the cases related to FIR Nos. 221 of 2001 and 228 of 2002, which wer...
RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LIMITED & ORS. Vs STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 156 SC

Headnote :

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Chairpersons of Reliance Communications Ltd., Reliance Telecom Ltd., and Reliance Infratel Ltd. have violated the commitments made to the court and its associated orders under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The court has ordered the Chairman of Relianc...
RIYA GEORGE Vs KANNUR MEDICAL COLLEGE AND ORS

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 157 SC

Headnote :

Article 32 of the Constitution. The petitioner, a medical student, filed a petition under Article 32 requesting compensation for the loss of an academic year. The Supreme Court ruled that it cannot determine damages in this case, as quantifying damages in monetary terms would impact the ongoing proc...
BOARD OF TRUSTEES FOR THE PORT OF KOLKATA AND ORS. Vs APL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND ORS.

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 159 SC

Headnote :

Section 6 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 addresses the issue of the appellants, \"Port Trust,\" regarding their authority to seize and sell goods and materials located on the \"public premises\" as per the PP Act. The Estate Officer, according to Section 6, has...
SANJAY SINGH AND ANR. Vs. CENTRAL HIMALAYAN LAND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD.

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 160 SC

Headnote :

The High Court\'s decision to condone a delay of 721 days was deemed inappropriate due to the lack of a satisfactory explanation. The respondent exhibited gross negligence, and the justification provided for the request for condonation was found to be incorrect. It was claimed that the complaint aga...
NAGRAJ Vs UNION OF INDIA

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 161 SC

Headnote :

Section 160(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 states that the offense in question does not pose a threat to society, lacks moral turpitude, and has not resulted in any harm or injury to individuals, aside from some damage to railway property. Given that the offense is now 13 years old, the Supreme Court...
JAGDISH Vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 162 SC

Headnote :

The Indian Penal Code, Section 302. The Supreme Court noted a significant, unjustified delay by the State of Madhya Pradesh, which has failed to submit a counter affidavit in the Writ Petition. The state has not provided any explanation for the over four-year delay in processing the petition. The Co...
Anil Kumar Vs. Union of India

Citation : 2019 Latest Caselaw 166 SC

Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter