Leave granted.
Category - Latest Judgments
Latest Judgments of Supreme Court
State of Maharashtra & Anr. v. Tara Ashwin Patel & Ors.
Service Law — Promotion — Date of promotion — Appeal — It is contended by the appellant that the respondents ought to have put in 8 yrs’ regular service for the grant of senior scale and the period from 1-7-1975 till 25-10-1977...
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Om Pal Singh
The State has come in appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 982 of 2002.
State, Rep. by Inspector of Police Central Crime Branch v. R. Vasanthi Stanley & Anr.
A. Criminal Law — Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 482 — Economic offence — Criminal proceedings — Quashing of, challenged — Ground — Settlement and dues cleared yet accused cannot be absolved from the criminal culpability...
Edara Haribabu v. Tulluri Venkata Narasimham & Ors.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 39 Rr. 1 and 2 and Or. 41 R. 5 — Power of Courts under — Exercise of, during pendency of lis — Held, Courts are always vested with inherent and statutory power to stay/restrain the execution of...
M/s. Purohit and Company v. Khatoonbee and Anr.
Issue notice on the condition that the petitioner shall pay an amount of Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation expenses to the respondents.
P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. The Dist. Inspector of Police and Anr.
A. Criminal Law — Criminal trial — Proof — Suspicion — Relevance — Reiterated that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof — Thus, prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of “may be” true but has...
Pant Nagar Mahatma Phule Co-op. Housing Society Ltd. and Ors. etc. v. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Ors. etc.
Housing, Construction and Real Estate — Illegal or Unauthorised Construction — Demolition of construction — Notice to owner — Requirement as to — Compliance of — Necessity — Respondent-authorities reached the site in question and...
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P. & Anr.
It is submitted by Mr. Pradeep Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that there has been a typographical error in describing the name of the respondent No. 2.
Shivaram & Ors. v. Kashinath Ganesh Hegde & Anr.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

