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
Constitutional law

SANDEEP ALIAS KALA versus SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

The principles enunciated in the Constitution Bench decision in Sita Ram continue to govern preliminary hearings of appeals under Article 134(1)(a) or (b) and Section 2 of the Enlargement of Jurisdiction Act: ordinarily notice must be issued, records examined and reasons recorded; the deletion of Rule 15(1)(c) was intended to enforce those principles rather than permit uncharted summary ex parte dismissals. However, no relief could be granted to the petitioner because his appeal and subsequent review had already been dismissed and the conviction had attained finality, leaving him at liberty t…

Source excerpt

  • Preliminary hearing
  • Right of appeal
  • Notice
  • Recording of reasons
  • Deletion of court rules
  • Natural justice
Read case analysis
Civil procedure

BHIVCHANDRA SHANKAR MORE versus BALU GANGARAM MORE & ORS.

Time spent in pursuing application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside ex-parte decree should be considered as 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay in filing appeal under Section 96(2) CPC, as right of appeal is statutory and cannot be barred merely for pursuing another remedy. Remedies may be pursued consecutively depending on facts and absence of dilatory tactics.

Source excerpt

  • Condonation of delay
  • Ex-parte decree
  • Partition suit
  • Right of appeal
Read case analysis
Taxation

K. RAVEENDRANATHAN NAIR & ANR. versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & OTHERS

Section 52A of Kerala Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1959, inserted by the Amendment Act of 2003, is not retrospective. For appeals under Section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961, if the date of assessment (for the assessee) or date appellate authority negated demand (for department) is prior to 6 March 2003, court fee payable shall be as per the provisions prevailing on that date and not as per Section 52A. The High Court's decision is set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Right of appeal
  • Retrospective effect of court fee amendments
  • Substantive vs procedural rights
Read case analysis
Criminal law

STATE (THROUGH) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION versus SHRI KALYAN SINGH (FORMER CM OF UP) & ORS.

All offences arising out of Babri Masjid demolition are part of a single transaction and must be tried jointly in Lucknow. Dropping proceedings against accused named in the joint chargesheet was erroneous. Supreme Court has power under Article 142 to transfer proceedings and ensure complete justice, even if statutory powers for transfer reside with the High Court under Section 407 CrPC. No de novo trial is required; charges can be added in ongoing proceedings, with right to recall witnesses ensured.

Source excerpt

  • Joint trial
  • Criminal conspiracy
  • Right of appeal
  • Transfer of proceedings
  • Use of article 142
  • Chargesheet amendment
Read case analysis
Service law

U.P. POWER CORPORATION LTD. AND ANOTHER versus VIRENDRA LAL (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS.

The Chairman was the competent authority under the Regulations to impose punishment; by the order having been passed by the UPSEB itself, the delinquent employee was denied his right to appeal, making the order invalid. Therefore, the Tribunal and High Court rightly set aside the order of punishment.

Source excerpt

  • Misconduct
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Punishment
  • Right of appeal
  • Imposition of punishment by higher authority
  • Post-retirement disciplinary action
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus BRIGADIER P.S. GILL

There is no vested right of appeal against a final order or decision of the Armed Forces Tribunal to the Supreme Court except those falling under Section 30(2) of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. An appeal under Section 30(1) is subject to Section 31; a party aggrieved by a final order must first seek a certificate from the Tribunal before approaching the Supreme Court for leave to appeal. The only mode to bring up the matter in appeal is either by way of certificate from the Tribunal or by obtaining leave of the Supreme Court under Section 31.

Source excerpt

  • Appeals from armed forces tribunal
  • Interpretation of statutory provisions
  • Right of appeal
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

DAYARAM versus SUDHIR BATHAM & ORS.

Directions issued by the Supreme Court in Kumari Madhuri Patil under Articles 142 and 32 to regulate verification and scrutiny of caste certificates are valid and constitutional, filling the legislative gap for protection of fundamental rights. Exclusion of civil court jurisdiction is valid when the scheme arises from Supreme Court directions, but the right of intra-court appeal provided by statute cannot be taken away by judicial order. The second sentence of direction 13 in Madhuri Patil, barring intra-court appeals, is not legally proper and stands overruled.

Source excerpt

  • Scheduled caste certificate verification
  • Judicial guidelines
  • Jurisdiction of civil courts
  • Right of appeal
Read case analysis
Service law

ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ANR. versus R.K. UPPAL

Regulation 17 does not mandate personal hearing in all appeals; it is required only where the appellate authority proposes enhancement of penalty. The order of the appellate authority in this case addresses the grounds raised and demonstrates application of mind; High Court’s direction for personal hearing and reasoned order was erroneous.

Source excerpt

  • Departmental inquiry
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Natural justice
  • Right of appeal
  • Personal hearing
  • Speaking order
Read case analysis
Service law

GOVERNMENT OF AP. & ANR. versus N. RAMANAIAH

The Government, being an authority to which the appointing authority is subordinate, can pass a dismissal order under the Rules. No right of appeal exists when order is passed by Government in the name of Governor, but a wide remedy of review is available under rule 38. The constitutional protection under Article 311(1)(2) is preserved; hence, dismissal order passed by Government is valid and the contrary view of the High Court is unsustainable.

Source excerpt

  • Dismissal of government servant
  • Right of appeal
  • Departmental enquiry
  • Review remedy
  • Constitutional protections for government employees
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

A. SUDHAKAR versus POST MASTER GENERAL, HYDERABAD AND ANR

Director of Postal Services, being the appointing authority, acted within jurisdiction; appellant was not deprived of statutory right of appeal and had an opportunity to defend; temporary defalcation was sufficient ground for compulsory retirement; quantum of punishment is not disproportionate.

Source excerpt

  • Article 311 of constitution of india
  • Departmental enquiry
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Compulsory retirement
  • Quantum of punishment
  • Right of appeal
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.