Esheria India Case Law
Sign in
India Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

India Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
0 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter India case law

Results update automatically as you type.

India decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Family law

KOMAL KRISHAN ARORA & ORS. versus SANDEEP KUMAR & ORS.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's order granting interim custody of the minor son to the father because, on the facts, the welfare and best interests of the child would be served by his custody with the father (natural guardian), the mother had left the child in India without informing the father and failed to disclose the fact to the UK court, the father had sufficient means and a suitably located residence (Noida) offering better facilities, and appropriate interim safeguards and directions (visitation, prohibition on taking the child abroad, and initiation…

Source excerpt

  • Custody
  • Interim custody
  • Visitation
  • Habitual residence
  • Comity of courts
  • Jurisdiction
Read case analysis
Child and family welfare

SHARMILA VELAMUR versus V. SANJAY AND ORS.

The expert evaluations (NIMHANS Comprehensive Assessment Report and the Idaho Evaluation Committee) establish that Aadith functions at the cognitive level of an approximately 8–10-year-old and lacks capacity to make well-informed, independent decisions on complex matters such as long-term residence; the Madras High Court erred in deciding alleged illegal detention based solely on a brief oral interaction. Applying the parens patriae doctrine and considering Aadith's best interests (including his established roots, education, services and sibling relationship in the US), the Court set aside th…

Source excerpt

  • Capacity to make decisions
  • Best interests of the child
  • Parens patriae
  • Credence to expert reports
  • Foreign guardianship orders
Read case analysis
Criminal procedure (cr.p.c.)

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH & ANR versus VIJAYANAGARAM CHINNA REDDAPPA

Section 426(2)(b) cannot be applied to life convicts because there is no technical unexpired portion of a life sentence; therefore Section 427(2) Cr.P.C. governs the situation and requires that a subsequent sentence imposed on a person already undergoing life imprisonment shall run concurrently with the previous life sentence; application of Section 427(2) by the High Court was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Interplay of sections 426 and 427 cr.p.c.
  • Escaped convict
  • Life sentence
  • Concurrent sentence
  • Special remission
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

RAJESWARI CHANDRASEKAR GANESH versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ORS.

The Court held that the paramount consideration is the welfare of the children; having regard to the facts (both children residents of and educated in the USA, one a US citizen and the other a US permanent resident, the mother's stable situation in the USA and the circumstances of removal), the petitioner established a prima facie case that custody with the father was contrary to the children's welfare and that repatriation to the USA would be in their best interests; accordingly the writ petition was allowed and the father was directed to take steps to return the children to the USA and comp…

Source excerpt

  • Welfare of the child
  • Parens patriae
  • Parental alienation syndrome
  • Comity of courts and foreign orders
  • Repatriation of children
  • Guardianship legislation
Read case analysis
Custody

SWAMINATHAN KUNCHU ACHARYA versus STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS.

On the facts the High Court erred in awarding custody to the maternal aunt; because there were no findings that the paternal grandparents were unfit and considering the child's interim residence and inclination, the balance for the child's welfare and best interest tilts in favour of the paternal grandparents, who shall continue custody subject to the final outcome of pending Section 7 proceedings.

Source excerpt

  • Welfare of the child
  • Best interest of the child
  • Visitation rights
  • Interim custody
Read case analysis
Family law

MRS. KANIKA GOEL versus STATE OF DELHI THROUGH S.H.O. AND ANR.

Custody of the minor child M to remain with the appellant until she attains majority or unless a court of competent jurisdiction rules otherwise; no compelling reason exists for return of the minor child to US; biological mother's custody is lawful; pending proceedings in New Delhi Family Court should be decided promptly, parties should avoid parallel proceedings in different jurisdictions; respondent No.2 to bear costs for US litigation, travel, and stay if appellant is required to defend in US court.

Source excerpt

  • Custody of minor child
  • Jurisdiction for custody proceedings
  • Best interests of the child
  • Parallel proceedings
  • Habeas corpus
  • Child removal across jurisdictions
Read case analysis
Family law

JITENDER ARORA & ORS. versus SUKRITI ARORA & ORS.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's custody order and held that because the child was a mature 15-year-old who had unequivocally expressed her wish to remain with her father and not to be sent to the UK, her welfare lay in staying with her father; sending her to a foreign country against her wishes would not be in her interest.

Source excerpt

  • Welfare of the child
  • Maturity and child's choice
  • Custody disputes
  • Visitation rights
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

SEBASTIAN M. HONGRAY versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

On the preponderance of evidence the respondents failed to prove that C. Daniel and C. Paul left Phungrei Camp on March 11, 1982; they were last seen alive under the surveillance and control of the army at the camp, and therefore a writ of habeas corpus must be issued to respondents 1, 2 and 4 commanding production of the two persons and requiring respondents to file a return.

Source excerpt

  • Article 32
  • Ex parte writs
  • Burden of proof in habeas corpus petitions
  • Detention by security forces
  • Public interest privilege (claim under evidence act section 123)
Read case analysis
National security act, 1980

BIRU MAHATO versus DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, DHANBAD.

The detention order dated February 5, 1982 was invalid because it was made when the detenu was already confined in jail and the detention order and supporting affidavit did not show that the detaining authority was aware of that fact and yet subjectively satisfied that preventive detention remained necessary; moreover the affidavit purporting to supply that awareness was by a different officer and could not substitute for the detaining authority's own subjective satisfaction, hence the order was quashed.

Source excerpt

  • Preventive detention against persons already in custody
  • Subjective satisfaction of detaining authority
  • Non-application of mind
  • Awareness of detention by detaining authority
  • Requirement as to affidavit of detaining authority
  • Quashing of detention orders
Read case analysis
Habeas corpus

JAGE RAM, INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. versus HANS RAJ MIDHA

The High Court's findings that the detenu had been taken into custody prior to May 10, 1968 and tortured were supported by the detenu's statement, the Court Reader's report and the Chief Medical Officer's medical report; the appellants had an opportunity to explain by filing affidavits; the remarks were based on record and were necessary to protect fundamental liberty in habeas corpus proceedings, therefore the appeal to expunge those remarks was dismissed.

Source excerpt

  • Expunging of remarks against authorities
  • Custodial torture and medical examination
  • Remand and production of detenu
  • Judicial comments on executive action
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

India decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.