Judgements Search Made Easy
Find Judgements on all Sections and Judgements by all Courts
Filter Judgements by Category and Subcategory.
Judgement By Sections or Articles
Select some options
Judgement Court
Select some options
Judgement Year
Select Judgment Year
Judgement Bench
Select Bench/Beches
Judgements
SAMJUBEN GORDHANBHAI KOLI Vs STATE OF GUJARAT
- 2010
- Supreme Court Of India
We make it clear that the power of the President of India under Article 72 or of the Governor under Article 161, being a constitutional power cannot be under the restriction imposed by Section 433-A Cr.P.C.
KAHKASHAN KAUSAR @ SONAM & ORS. Vs STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.
- 2022
- Supreme Court Of India
In view of the above facts and discussions, the impugned order dated 13.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Patna is set aside. The impugned F.I.R. No. 248 of 2019 against the Appellants under Sections 341, 323, 379, 354, 498A read with Section 34 IPC stands quashed.
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Vs RAJ KUMAR @ BITTU
- 2021
- Supreme Court Of India
The case for premature release of the prisoner in terms of the policy of the State Government dated 13.8.2008, the policy which was applicable on the date of his conviction, can be considered only after he completes 14 years of actual imprisonment. However, the State Government can consider the prisoner in question for premature release after undergoing imprisonment for less than 14 years only under Article 161 of the Constitution.
GAURI SHANKAR Vs STATE OF PUNJAB
- 2021
- Supreme Court Of India
t is true that the punishment of remainder of natural life could not have been imposed by the learned trial Judge but after looking into the entire case, we consider it appropriate to confirm the sentence of imprisonment for life to mean the remainder of natural life while upholding the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Bhag Singh v. Bhajan Singh And Another
- 1968
- High Court of Punjab and Haryana
In any" event, the respondence of authority is in favour of the view that the only requirement, so far as tenant is concerned, is that he should be in possession of the land at the date of the sale and if he is in possession on that date, he is entitled to a decree for pre-emption.
Sultan And Another v. Shaym Lal And Another
- 1981
- High Court of Punjab and Haryana
I have no hesitation in holding that the only proper interpretation of the clause in question is that although a tenant becomes qualified to bring a suit for Pre-emption as soon as he can establish that he holds right of tenancy over any portion of the land which forms part of the sale, his right to preempt extends only to the extent of the property over which he has the tenancy rights.
Tikam Ram vs Mangtu And Ors.
- 1970
- Delhi High Court
In fact the proposition that the right of pre-emption is generally limited to the extent of the pre-emptor's right is too well established to admit of a challenge. What follows from this doctrine is that a pre-emptor is not bound to claim the whole when his right of pre-emption extends only to a part.
Rajaram vs Arjan Singh And Ors.
- 1952
- High Court of Punjab and Haryana
The right of pre-emption which is sought to be enforced is the right of pre-emption defined in Section 15(b) 'fourthly' read with Section 4 of the Act and the plaintiff cannot succeed in the suit unless he proves that he possessed that right on the date of the sale.
Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd vs Rajvir Industries Ltd. & Ors
- 2008
- Supreme Court Of India
As soon as a first information report was lodged, a notice was immediately sent. A quashing application was filed within a few days for the lodging of the first information report. The investigation was not allowed to take place at all.