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
Land law

STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. versus JAI HIND PVT. LTD.

The Revenue Officer had no statutory power to undertake a substantive review of the 1971 vesting order; the Government Order of 26.02.2008 could not confer such jurisdiction; the 2008 review order failed the limited judicial tests for review under Order XLVII r.1 CPC and was void for want of jurisdiction; the respondent-company failed to prove exclusive engagement in agricultural farming as on 01.01.1952 under s.6(1)(j) WBEA Act, 1953; consequently the Tribunal rightly quashed the 2008 review order and restored the 1971 vesting order.

Source excerpt

  • Power of review
  • Vesting of land
  • Section 6(1)(j) wbea act 1953
  • Section 57a wbea act 1953
  • Separation of powers
  • Order xlvii rule 1 cpc
Read case analysis
Demolition of property

IN RE: DIRECTIONS IN THE MATTER OF DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES versus

The executive may not, merely because a person is accused (or even convicted), demolish his or her residential or commercial property without following the due process prescribed by law; such demolitions that are punitive, arbitrary or discriminatory violate the rule of law, separation of powers and Article 21 (right to life and shelter). The Court therefore issued binding pan-India procedural directions under Article 142 to ensure notice, personal hearing, reasoned final orders, limited implementation periods, opportunity for appellate/judicial scrutiny, video-recording of demolition, and ac…

Source excerpt

  • Right to shelter
  • Article 21
  • Rule of law
  • Separation of powers
  • Public trust and accountability
  • Due process
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

The Explanations to Rule 38 of the MCR, 2016 and Rule 45 of the MCDR, 2017 are clarificatory and within the rulemaking power of the respondents and are not struck down as manifestly arbitrary or in excess of statutory authority in the absence of material showing illegality or breach of statutory limits; judicial review is limited to legality of the decision-making process and not re-evaluation of economic policy. However, because the respondents have themselves recognised a prima facie anomaly and initiated public consultation, the respondents are directed to conclude that process and take a…

Source excerpt

  • Royalty computation
  • Article 14 - equality
  • Interpretation of rules and explanations
  • Judicial review of policy
  • Separation of powers
  • Judicial restraint
Read case analysis
Service law

STATE OF ASSAM AND OTHERS versus BINOD KUMAR AND OTHERS

Rule 63(iii) of the Assam Police Manual is invalid insofar as it requires the Deputy Commissioner (an officer outside the police service) to initiate ACRs/APARs of District Superintendents of Police because this conflicts with the scheme of the All India Service rules (1970/2007) which require reporting, reviewing and accepting authorities to be from the same service/department and with Section 14(2) of the Assam Police Act, 2007 which prohibits the Deputy Commissioner from interfering in the internal organization and discipline of the police force; therefore the Deputy Commissioner cannot be…

Source excerpt

  • Reporting authority
  • Annual confidential reports (acr) / annual performance appraisal reports (apar)
  • All india service rules
  • Section 14(1) and 14(2) assam police act, 2007
  • Harmonious construction
  • Separation of powers
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

SUPRIYO @ SUPRIYA CHAKRABORTY & ANR versus UNION OF INDIA

The Court held that there is no unqualifi ed fundamental right to marry under the Constitution and that legal recognition of marriage or a statutory civil-union status is a matter for the legislature; the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and the Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 cannot be judicially rewritten to enable same-sex marriage; transgender persons in heterosexual relationships can marry under existing laws; while the Court declined to create a statutory marriage regime for queer unions, it recognized indirect discriminatory impacts upon queer couples caused by existing laws and public schemes and…

Source excerpt

  • Right to marry
  • Civil unions
  • Special marriage act, 1954
  • Foreign marriage act, 1969
  • Adoption regulations/cara regulations
  • Transgender persons (protection of rights) act, 2019
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

NHPC LTD. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SECRETARY & ORS.

The Amendment and Validation Act of 1997 validly cured the defects identified by the High Court (by enlarging the definition of 'business', defining 'fare','freight' and 'road', deleting the Explanation to Section 3(1) and inserting Section 3(1A) with Schedule I), thereby lawfully removing the basis of the Division Bench judgment of 27.03.1997; accordingly non-fare paying employees and their children transported by the appellants fall within the tax net under Section 3(1-A) and the State Legislature had competence under Article 246 read with Entry 56 List II; the appeals are dismissed but, in…

Source excerpt

  • Retrospective legislation
  • Validation/validation acts
  • Abrogation of judicial decisions
  • Legislative competence
  • Passenger tax
  • Separation of powers
Read case analysis
Service law

DR. JAYA THAKUR versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

The amendments to the CVC Act, the DSPE Act and the Fundamental Rules, 1922 are not ultra vires: they do not alter the minimum two-year tenure mandated by precedents and permit only committee‑recommended one‑year extensions (subject to reasons recorded and a total cap of five years), and therefore do not ipso facto destroy insulation. However, the two office orders of 17 November 2021 and 17 November 2022 extending respondent No.2's tenure breached this Court's specific mandamus in Common Cause (2021) and are illegal; in the public interest respondent No.2 is permitted to continue in office u…

Source excerpt

  • Tenure of director of cbi and director of enforcement
  • Central vigilance commission act, 2003
  • Delhi special police establishment act, 1946
  • Fundamental rules, 1922
  • Legislative override of judicial orders
  • Separation of powers
Read case analysis
Labour law

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS’ FEDERATION OF INDIA (REGD.) versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

The Amendment Act, 2009 validly amended Section 2(e) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and inserted Section 13A with retrospective effect from 3 April 1997 to include teachers as 'employees' for purposes of the Act; this legislative repair was within Parliament's competence, did not unlawfully overrule the Court, remedied discrimination caused by the prior statutory defect, and applies to teachers who were in service on 3 April 1997 and on termination have rendered not less than five years' continuous service (counting service before that date); stay orders were vacated and private schools…

Source excerpt

  • Payment of gratuity act 1972
  • Retrospective amendment
  • Separation of powers
  • Validation of notifications
  • Discrimination in employment benefits
Read case analysis
Constitutional law

MADRAS BAR ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.

The Court held that the first proviso to s.184(1) (minimum age 50) and the second proviso to s.184(1) read with the third proviso (allowances/benefits parity limiting HRA) introduced by Section 12 of the Tribunals Reforms (Rationalisation and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021 are unconstitutional and void; Section 184(7) (panel of two names and Government decision 'preferably' within three months) is unconstitutional and void; Section 184(11)(i) and (ii) prescribing a four-year tenure are void and unconstitutional. The Court further held that the declaration in MBA-III shall prevail: Cha…

Source excerpt

  • Separation of powers
  • Independence of judiciary
  • Legislative override
  • Tribunal appointments and tenure
  • Retrospectivity
  • House rent allowance (hra)
Read case analysis
Service law

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS. versus DR. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA

The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had been relieved pursuant to the Uttar Pradesh posting order, the communication principle (order sent is communication) applies, the petitioner did not report to the place of posting and effectively feigned ignorance while being gainfully employed; accordingly he was not entitled to the grant of back wages awarded by the High Court and the High Court orders granting 50% back wages were set aside.

Source excerpt

  • Back wages
  • Transfer and posting
  • Disciplinary proceedings
  • Summoning of public officers
  • Separation of powers
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.