Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
India decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Supreme Court held that a plaintiff in a commercial suit must file a reply to a counter-claim within the Order VIII Rule 1 time limits, and upheld dismissal of the belated reply.
The Supreme Court set aside NCLT and NCLAT orders after finding they relied on fake or hallucinated AI-generated citations, and stressed human control over AI in adjudication.
Supreme Court held that a Section 62 IBC appeal not cured within 28 days of defect notification cannot have re-filing delay condoned and is time-barred.
The Supreme Court held that an appeal filed and refiled before NCLAT without the required certified copy was incompetent and should have been rejected at the threshold.
Non-compliance with Order 41 Rule 31 CPC does not by itself vitiate the judgment of the Appellate Court; Rule 31 must be reasonably construed and its particulars need be stated in the appellate judgment only when the appellant has actually raised points for determination, and substantial compliance suffices. The High Court's view that non-framing of points under Rule 31 automatically voids the appellate judgment is incorrect.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the Tribunal correctly assessed the deceased's monthly salary at Rs.15,000 and his age as 33 years, applied multiplier 16 appropriately, added 40% for future prospects pursuant to Pranay Sethi, deducted one-fourth for personal expenses, computed total loss of dependency as Rs.30,24,000 and directed the insurer to deposit the balance due after adjusting the High Court award.
Source excerpt
The High Court erred in relying on evidence from only one trial to decide separate appeals arising from different trials; evidence recorded in a criminal trial is confined to the culpability of the accused tried in that trial and an appellate court must base its decision on the trial record of the case before it unless statutory provisions for additional inquiry or evidence apply; accordingly the High Court judgment was set aside and matters remanded for fresh consideration.
Source excerpt
Section 21 of the RDBA mandates pre-deposit of fifty per cent of the decretal amount to entertain an appeal, with discretion to reduce to not less than twenty-five per cent for reasons recorded; a total waiver is contrary to the statutory scheme. The High Court order waiving pre-deposit in entirety was set aside and DRAT’s order was modified to permit respondents to pre-deposit twenty-five per cent of Rs.68,18,92,841 and prosecute the appeal, subject to deposit within eight weeks.
Source excerpt
Order of the High Court refusing leave to appeal against acquittal without any reasons is unsustainable; reasons must be given to indicate application of mind especially where further challenge is possible.
Source excerpt
Under Section 54 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, there is no bar to the maintainability of a Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment of a Single Judge of the High Court passed in an appeal. The non-obstante clause does not extend to the charter of the High Court. The word 'only' in Section 54 refers to the forum, not the number of appeals, and includes Letters Patent Appeals.
Source excerpt
Explore more
