In this criminal appeal, the appellant challenged his conviction under Section 6 read with Section 10 of the Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004, which had resulted in a sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine, later restricted by the High Court in revision to the period
In this batch of civil appeals filed under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court partly allowed the appeals filed by landowners, setting aside a 2019 common order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The dispute arose from the acquisition of land across six villages in
In this criminal appeal, the Supreme Court of India set aside a judgment of the Allahabad High Court and quashed an order of preventive detention issued under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA) against the appellant. The bench held that a confessional statement made to a police officer—particularly one alleged
In this civil appeal, the Supreme Court of India addressed the legality of concurrent decrees granting specific performance based solely on an oral agreement. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside both the Trial Court and High Court judgments. The bench held that the subsequent suit for specific performance
In these criminal appeals arising from the dismissal of regular bail applications by the Rajasthan High Court, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Sheel Nagu considered the cases of two appellants—Shubhanshu Dixit, a former public servant who served as Secretary of the Rajasthan Water Supply and Sewerage Management
Taking suo motu cognizance of alarming media reports detailing brutal crimes against women and minors across Delhi-NCR—including the gang rape and murder of a teenager in Swaroop Nagar and the sexual assault of a minor inside a moving sleeper bus—the Supreme Court bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K.
In this judgment delivered by Justice K. Vinod Chandran, the Supreme Court of India upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s (NCLAT) decision, which had affirmed the forfeiture of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and additional deposits made by a successful auction bidder under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
