Digest Of Supreme Court Cases

Companies Act, 1956 — S. 111-A — [Corresponding to S. 59 of the Companies Act, 2013] — Rectificatory jurisdiction — Nature and scope

The provisions re the exercise of rectificatory powers of a Board/Company Court under S. 38 of the Companies Act, 1913, then under S. 155 of the 1956 Act, followed by S. 111-A introduced by the 1996 Amendment to the 1956 Act, and finally, S. 59 of the 2013 Act, held, demonstrate that its essential ingredients

Companies Act, 1956 — S. 111-A — [Corresponding to S. 59 of the Companies Act, 2013] — Rectificatory jurisdiction — Nature and scope Read More »

CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 — R. 54(14)(b) — Family pension

Although Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act entitles widow of a government servant to adopt a son/daughter, but rights and entitlements of such adopted son/daughter as available under Hindu Law against his/her adoptive family, would not be available as against deceased government servant, under the 1972 Rules. Held, The entitlement of such a posthumous child is

CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 — R. 54(14)(b) — Family pension Read More »

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — S. 2(2): Female member of Scheduled Tribe (ST) is not entitled to share by survivorship in compensation awarded for acquisition of ancestral land in view of non-applicability of the HSA, 1956 to STs

Her claim of equal share with male coparceners in joint family property may be supportable in equity but cannot be sustained under S. 2(2) of the HSA, 1956 as it stands.   Held, Before parting, we may observe that there may not be any justification to deny the right of survivorship so far as the

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — S. 2(2): Female member of Scheduled Tribe (ST) is not entitled to share by survivorship in compensation awarded for acquisition of ancestral land in view of non-applicability of the HSA, 1956 to STs Read More »

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 22 Rr. 3, 4 and 11, Or. 39 and Or. 43 R. 1(r) — Death of party and bringing of LRs on record

The fact that in the suit, the legal representative was not substituted would not result in the consequence which the High Court has found in the impugned order having regard to the declaration of the law made by this Court. In other words, in view of the fact that the legal representative has been brought

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 22 Rr. 3, 4 and 11, Or. 39 and Or. 43 R. 1(r) — Death of party and bringing of LRs on record Read More »

Constitution of India — Arts. 15(6) and 16(6) — Economic Disabilities or Economic Backwardness Criterion

Economic disabilities or economic backwardness, held (per majority), is a valid criterion for reservation or compensatory discrimination. Reservation structured singularly on economic criteria does not damage the basic structure of the Constitution. [Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (EWS Reservation), (2023) 5 SCC 1]

Constitution of India — Arts. 15(6) and 16(6) — Economic Disabilities or Economic Backwardness Criterion Read More »

Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 106 — Facts proved to be within special knowledge of accused:

Principles summarised relating to effect of failure of accused to throw any light upon facts proved to be within special knowledge of accused and circumstances when accused does owe explanation under S. 106. It was not disputed that the petitioner had taken the deceased with him on the previous day evening and thereafter he was

Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 106 — Facts proved to be within special knowledge of accused: Read More »

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ch. XII (Ss. 165 to 176), Ch. X (Ss. 140 to 144) and Ch. XI (Ss. 145 to 164-D) [as they stand after 2019 Amendment]

Convenient procedure for adjudication of claim cases without delay: Considering overall aspects of Amending Act of 2019, elaborate directions issued under Art. 142 of the Constitution to ensure expeditious disposal of accident compensation cases. Held further, Registrar General of the High Courts, States Legal Services Authority and State Judicial Academies are requested to sensitize all

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ch. XII (Ss. 165 to 176), Ch. X (Ss. 140 to 144) and Ch. XI (Ss. 145 to 164-D) [as they stand after 2019 Amendment] Read More »

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 2(21), 2(15), 2(48) and 10(2)(d) [as amended by Amendment Act 54 of 1994] r/w Rr. 5 and 31 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and S. 149:

Matter relating to whether a person licensed to drive LMV ipso facto entitled to drive a transport vehicle in that category, referred by present three-Judge Bench to larger Bench of Supreme Court for reconsideration of correctness of ruling of three-Judge Bench in Mukund Dewangan, (2017) 14 SCC 663. Held, Thereafter certain provisions which were not

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Ss. 2(21), 2(15), 2(48) and 10(2)(d) [as amended by Amendment Act 54 of 1994] r/w Rr. 5 and 31 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 and S. 149: Read More »

Copyright Act, 1957 — S. 63: whether Offence prescribing a maximum sentence of 3 yrs, under S.63, is a cognizable and non-bailable offence explained

Held, Thus, for the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright Act, the punishment provided is imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to three years and with fine. Therefore, the maximum punishment which can be imposed would be three years. Therefore, the learned Magistrate may sentence the accused

Copyright Act, 1957 — S. 63: whether Offence prescribing a maximum sentence of 3 yrs, under S.63, is a cognizable and non-bailable offence explained Read More »

Terms & Conditions

The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, the user acknowledges that:

  1. The user wishes to gain more information about Re Legal, its practice areas for his/her own information and use.
  2. That the information provided in the website is only for personal use or reference of the visitor and is provided only on his/her specific request.
  3. That the material available for downloading on the website and other information provided on the website would not create any lawyer-client relationship.
  4. That we are not responsible for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on material/information provided under this website.
  5. That in case the visitor has any legal issues; he or she should seek independent legal advice.

The information provided under this website is for informational purposes only and solely available at your request. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising. I AGREE