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 waitlisted candidate already recommended under the old Uttar Pradesh Act could not seek a fresh posting under Section 13(4) after the new Act commenced.
The appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof required in an execution petition to show that the respondents had violated the terms of the 1933 compromise decree; the Executing Court erred in allowing execution based on presumption without cogent evidence, and therefore the High Court rightly set aside the Executing Court's order; the appeals are dismissed.
Source excerpt
Although many of the appellant’s specific factual allegations lacked independent corroboration and, on the material before the Court, did not uniformly demonstrate wholesale breach of PUCL guidelines, the State’s own records indicated some instances warranting further independent evaluation; given the constitutional importance of Article 21 and the institutional role of human rights bodies, the High Court judgment dismissing the PIL was set aside and the matter was directed to be reinstated before the Assam Human Rights Commission for independent, expeditious inquiry with specified procedural…
Source excerpt
The application under Section 5 of the PTCL Act filed in 1992 challenging a 1969 sale was barred by delay and laches and should have been dismissed; the sale deed vested rights in the appellants; the respondents lacked locus to maintain the Section 5 application; and the Saguvalli Chit's 10-year non-alienation clause meant the sale could not justifiably be declared null and void on the grounds advanced by authorities and courts below.
Source excerpt
The Supreme Court held that the buyer's encashment of the demand drafts enclosed with the seller's cancellation letter constituted acceptance of repudiation and demonstrated lack of willingness to perform the agreement; because the seller had cancelled the agreement prior to institution of the suit and the plaintiff did not seek declaratory relief nor disclosed receipt and encashment of the refunds in the plaint, the agreement stood cancelled and the suit for specific performance was not maintainable; accordingly the decrees and sale deed were set aside and the buyer must be refunded the depo…
Source excerpt
The High Court was right to set aside the State's order directing registration because the Scrutiny Committee, constituted to assess financial ability, found the appellant-society not economically viable and the State improperly relaxed mandatory pre-requisites (including the Rs.5 lakh share capital requirement) without a Government Resolution, thereby frustrating the object of the Act; accordingly the appeals are dismissed and the High Court order upheld.
Source excerpt
The earlier suit (O.S.No.80/1978) between the appellant and the State for permanent injunction was decided on the merits and attained finality; the State is therefore bound by that decree and the plaintiffs in the subsequent representative suit, who were not parties and had knowledge of the earlier litigation but did not seek to be impleaded, have no locus standi to maintain a suit in representative capacity to obtain declaratory reliefs on behalf of the State; accordingly the representative suit is not maintainable and must be dismissed.
Source excerpt
The NCDRC lacked jurisdiction to entertain the representative complaint by the trusts (which had not obtained prior permission and, as trusts, were not consumers under the 1986 Act), and the NCDRC exceeded its jurisdiction by attempting to regulate or cap bank interest rates—a regulatory domain of the RBI protected by Section 21A/35A of the Banking Regulation Act; accordingly the NCDRC's directions fixing a 30% p.a. ceiling and related observations were set aside and its judgment dated 07.07.2008 quashed.
Source excerpt
The High Court erred in quashing the resumption and restoring the allotment because the original allottees had defaulted in payment despite show cause notice and multiple opportunities; the allotment was validly cancelled following due process, and the alleged tenant produced no evidence of tenancy and thus had no locus, rendering the tenant's litigation proxy litigation and an abuse of process; accordingly the High Court order was set aside and the appeals allowed.
Source excerpt
The appellant has locus to challenge the NCLAT order; NCLAT erred in invoking inherent powers under Rule 11 to approve and record the settlement after CIRP admission without following the procedure mandated by Section 12A of the IBC read with Regulation 30A (including submission through the IRP and placement before the NCLT); the NCLAT also failed to adequately address appellant's objections regarding source of funds; the NCLAT judgment is set aside and the CoC process and statutory procedure must be followed, with the realised settlement amount held in escrow and deposited with the CoC.
Source excerpt
Explore more
