Author name: CiteCase

Sri Siddaraja Manicka Prabhu Temple  Vs Idol Of Arulmighu Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple 2024 INSC 695

Summary: HC, by decreeing suit filed by the plaintiff directed defendant to handover the possession of the suit property to the Respondent-Plaintiff- Dismising appeal filed by defendant, SC observed: head of the Guru Manicka Prabhu Temple (Appellant-Defendant herein) could hold the property in Schedule ‘A’ which is the suit property as a trustee only, and …

Sri Siddaraja Manicka Prabhu Temple  Vs Idol Of Arulmighu Kamakala Kameshwarar Temple 2024 INSC 695 Read More »

A.S. Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd. 2024 INSC 690 – Ss 138,147 NI Act – S 482 CrPC – Compounding Of Cheque Bounce Cases

Negotiable Instruments Act,1881- Section 138,147 –An offence under Section 138, N.I. Act could be compounded under Section 147 thereof, only with the consent of the complainant concerned’ . (Para 17) Code of Criminal Procedure,1973- Section 482 – Merely because, in Raj Reddy Kallem v. The State of Haryana & Anr. 2024 INSC 347, SC ‘quashed’ …

A.S. Pharma Pvt. Ltd. vs Nayati Medical Pvt. Ltd. 2024 INSC 690 – Ss 138,147 NI Act – S 482 CrPC – Compounding Of Cheque Bounce Cases Read More »

Talluri Srikar vs Director, National Testing Agency 2024 INSC 694 – NEET 2024

Constitution of India,1950; Article 226- Courts must be circumspect in entertaining an individual grievance relating to a Public Examination as it delays finalization of result thereby seriously prejudicing larger public interest. (Para 7) Summary: Writ petition seeking a direction to the first respondent to conduct re-examination of NEET(UG)-2024 for the petitioner who claimed that he …

Talluri Srikar vs Director, National Testing Agency 2024 INSC 694 – NEET 2024 Read More »

Kukreja Construction Company vs State Of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 692 – Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay

Summary: Disposing appeal, SC held: Bombay High Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches -Question of delay and laches would not arise in matters such as the present cases. When relief in the nature of compensation is sought, as in the instant case, once the compensation …

Kukreja Construction Company vs State Of Maharashtra 2024 INSC 692 – Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay Read More »

Choudappa vs Choudappa (D) 2024 INSC 691 -Order XX Rule 12 CPC – Mesne Profits

Code Of Civil Procedure,1908-Order XX Rule 12 – Analogy with regard to the preparation of the final decree pursuant to the preliminary decree for partition can very well be applied to the cases where a decree is passed with a direction to hold an inquiry with regard to determination of mesne profits- Such an inquiry …

Choudappa vs Choudappa (D) 2024 INSC 691 -Order XX Rule 12 CPC – Mesne Profits Read More »

Kimneo Haokip Hangshing vs Kenn Raikhan 2024 INSC 689 – RP Act – Rejection Of Election Petition

Representation of the People Act, 1951- Section 83 – Code Of Civil Procedure,1908- Order VII Rule 11- Election Petition should not be rejected at the very threshold where there is a “substantial compliance” of the provisions- if substantial compliance in terms of furnishing all that is required under the law has been given, the petition …

Kimneo Haokip Hangshing vs Kenn Raikhan 2024 INSC 689 – RP Act – Rejection Of Election Petition Read More »

Rashmi Kant Vijay Chandra vs Baijnath Choubey & Company – 2024 INSC 688- S 100 CPC – Second Appeal

Code of Civil Procedure,1908; Section 100 – Second Appeal –High Courts are required to hear second appeals under Section 100 of the CPC only on the satisfaction that there exists a substantial question of law and the appeal has to be heard on the question so formulated -[In this case, while allowing appeal against judgment …

Rashmi Kant Vijay Chandra vs Baijnath Choubey & Company – 2024 INSC 688- S 100 CPC – Second Appeal Read More »

Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 INSC 687 – Bail

Summary: Bail granted to Arvind Kejriwal in CBI Case – Conditions imposed including: He shall not make any public comments on the merits of the CBI case, it being sub judice before the Trial Court. This condition is necessitated to dissuade a recent tendency of building a self-serving narrative on public platforms- Justice Surya Kant …

Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation 2024 INSC 687 – Bail Read More »