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
Consumer protection

EXPERION DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED versus HIMANSHU DEWAN AND SONALI DEWAN AND OTHERS

Dismissal by this Court of the appellant's appeals in Pawan Gupta by non-reasoned orders does not create a binding precedent under Article 141 and operates only as res judicata inter partes; it does not preclude the National Commission from re-examining claims in other allottees' cases where different evidence (such as architect certificates and reports) has been placed on record. The complaints in the present matters are not barred by limitation because the cause of action arose when the appellant compelled payments without furnishing particulars and when conveyance deeds were executed (2018…

Source excerpt

  • Limitation
  • Cause of action
  • Doctrine of merger
  • Res judicata
  • Acquiescence
  • Estoppel
Read case analysis
Motor vehicles act, 1988

NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED versus PRANAY SETHI AND ORS.

Addition for future prospects must be standardized and applied both to self-employed/fixed salary and salaried deceased; fixed sums for conventional heads are to be periodically escalated; binding nature of coordinate Benches confirmed.

Source excerpt

  • Computation of compensation
  • Future prospects
  • Just compensation
  • Multiplicand and multiplier
  • Loss of estate
  • Loss of consortium
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

CREDIT SOCIETY EMPLOYEES UNION versus B. YASHODABAIAND OTHERS

The High Court committed a serious error in law by not following the Supreme Court's judgment regarding the non-applicability of reservation policy to promotions within the Society, and by quashing the administrative order issued to effectuate that judgment. Such disregard violates Article 141 of the Constitution and the law of precedents.

Source excerpt

  • Promotion
  • Precedent
  • Article 141
  • Reservation policy
Read case analysis
Administrative law

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS versus MAJOR S.P. SHARMA AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court held that the power of pleasure exercised by the President in terminating the services of the respondent-officers under Article 310 and Section 18 of the Army Act was based on material relevant to State security, did not suffer from illegality, bias, or malafide, and is not open to challenge; Article 311 does not apply to Armed Forces, and Army Act cannot override constitutional provisions. Doctrine of res judicata and finality preclude reopening earlier proceedings.

Source excerpt

  • Doctrine of pleasure
  • Judicial review
  • Termination of armed forces personnel
  • Res judicata
  • Finality of litigation
  • Precedent
Read case analysis
Criminal law

D. ETHIRAJ versus SECRETARY TO GOVT. & ORS.

Eligibility for remission under G.O.Ms. No. 279 dated 23.2.1992 depends on the actual period of imprisonment undergone, not on whether the prisoner was on bail on the date of notification. The appellant, having suffered more than six months imprisonment, is entitled to have his case considered for remission.

Source excerpt

  • Remission of sentence
  • Application of government orders under article 161
  • Precedent
Read case analysis
Land acquisition

FIDA HUSSAIN & ORS. versus MORADABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

The Supreme Court held that the adequacy of compensation for lands acquired in Harthala and Mukkarrabpur under the same notifications was already finally settled in Gafar's case, after detailed consideration of all relevant evidence. Thus, the present appeals must follow that precedent and no further enhancement is justified. The Court restrained recovery of compensation already paid in view of long passage of time and peculiar facts.

Source excerpt

  • Compensation enhancement
  • Adequacy of compensation
  • Precedent
  • Natural justice
  • Opportunity of hearing
  • Recovery of compensation
Read case analysis
Taxation

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NAGPUR versus S. GURUKRIPA RESINS PVT. LTD.

The process of lifting water with the aid of electric motors, as an integral part of condensation necessary for the manufacture of Turpentine Oil and Rosin, constitutes 'manufacture with the aid of power' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Circulars cannot override Supreme Court decisions.

Source excerpt

  • Excise duty
  • Manufacture with aid of power
  • Binding nature of circulars
  • Statutory interpretation
  • Precedent
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

GANGADHARA PALO versus THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER & ANOTHER

Where Special Leave Petition (SLP) is dismissed without giving any reasons, there is no merger of the High Court judgment with the Supreme Court order, and the High Court judgment continues to exist and is capable of review; delay of 71 days should have been condoned by the High Court and the review petition decided on merits.

Source excerpt

  • Review petition
  • Doctrine of merger
  • Condonation of delay
  • Precedent
Read case analysis
Criminal law

SIDDHARAM SATLINGAPPA MHETRE versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

The Supreme Court held that the High Court's rejection of anticipatory bail was unsustainable, as the Constitution Bench in Sibbia's case is binding and covers all aspects of anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC. The limitations of Section 437 cannot be read into Section 438, and anticipatory bail if granted must last till the end of trial unless cancelled. In the event of arrest, appellant should be released on bail upon furnishing a personal bond.

Source excerpt

  • Anticipatory bail
  • Personal liberty
  • Interpretation of statutes
  • Judicial discipline
  • Bail
  • Precedent
Read case analysis
Service law

STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. versus GADILINGAPPA AND ORS.

Appointments made in contravention of required qualifications under recruitment rules are illegal and cannot be regularised, even if the incumbents have served for a long period. Erroneous precedents cannot justify perpetuation of such illegality.

Source excerpt

  • Regularisation
  • Minimum qualification
  • Recruitment rules
  • Precedent
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.