The Supreme Court of India partially allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction of the appellant under Sections 294(b) (obscene acts/words) and 506(ii) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), while maintaining the conviction under Section 326 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) with a modified sentence. The Court clarified that
Delhi High Court set aside a 2002 order that had rejected a petitioner’s application to convert a residential property from leasehold to freehold. Justice Amit Sharma ruled that the respondent’s (L&DO) rejection—based on a 1969 re-entry order and a demand for approximately ₹2 crores in misuse charges—was arbitrary and legally
This writ petition was filed by the petitioner, Mr. Ratinder Nath Abrol, challenging the orders passed by the learned Principal District & Sessions Judge and the Estate Officer, which directed his eviction from the shop premises (G-19, Palika Bhawan, New Delhi) and the payment of outstanding license fee arrears. The
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the concurrent findings of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the Gauhati High Court, which denied the appellant’s claim for compensation due to a reported shortage of salt bags during transit. The Court affirmed that because the goods were booked at “owner’s risk” with
The Supreme Court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing that incarceration does not extinguish the fundamental right to life and dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. The Court directed all States and Union Territories to formulate comprehensive, time-bound policies for the early or compassionate release of elderly (above 70 years)
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s judgment, restoring the First Appellate Court’s original order. The Court ruled that the High Court exceeded its limited jurisdiction under Article 226 by setting aside findings of fact that were arrived at by a competent civil court after
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s judgment that had upheld the denial of a compassionate appointment. The Court ruled that an employer cannot rely on its own administrative delays—specifically, failing to process an application for medical retirement filed before the employee reached the age of
