Durgam Rayalingu Vs The Chairman MLSC Mancherial Adilabad District and others on 14 June, 2018
Author: ShadesOfKnife
State Of Punjab and Anr Vs Jalour Singh and Ors on 18 January, 2008
Citations : [2008 SCC CIV 1 669], [2008 SCC CRI 1 524], [2008 SCC L&S 1 535], [2008 AIR SC 1209], [2008 KLJ 1 887], [2008 AIC SC 64 262], [2008 JT 2 83], [2008 SCALE 2 52], [2008 RCR CIVIL 1 857], [2008 AIR SC 0 1196], [2009 TAC 1 819], [2008 ALLSCR 0 692], [2008 SCJ 2 95], [2008 SCC 3 660], [2008 TNMAC 1 244], [2008 KHC 2 89], [2008 AIOL 112], [2008 ARBLR SC 1 257], [2008 SCR 1 922], [2008 MLJ SC 5 311], [2008 AIR SCW 1196], [2008 KLT SC 2 236], [2008 ACJ SC 2874]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/483834/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae95e4b0149711414361
Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 27 March, 2014
In this landmark judgment, a 2-judge Bench of Apex Court has held that a person can approach either High Court of a Sessions Court for a Regular bail under 439 CrPC, instead of exhausting the remedy of approaching the Magistrate Court.
News about this judgment:
Citations: [2014 AIOL 181], [2014 CRIMES SC 2 161], [2014 SCALE 4 215], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 2 313], [2014 SUPREME 3 285], [2014 AIR SC 2115], [2014 SLT 3 540], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 2 416], [2014 CRLJ SC 2245], [2014 JT 4 486], [2014 JCC SC 2 1264], [2014 AIR SC 1745], [2014 SCC 16 623], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 257], [2014 KERLT 2 809], [2014 CRILJ 2245], [2014 NCC 1 570], [2015 NCC 1 798]
Other Source Links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102030495/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af48e4b01497114160a8
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors Vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973
This is the landmark judgment of Supreme Court, where in Hon’ble Justice Hans Raj Khanna has outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution and that only those amendments which tend to affect the ‘basic structure of the Constitution’ are subject to judicial review.
Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesavananda_Bharati_v._State_of_Kerala
Minerva Mills Ltd. & Ors Vs Union Of India & Ors on 31 July, 1980
In this landmark judgment from Apex Court, two sections of Article 368 of Constitution of India are struck down as being invalid and unconstitutional, as they are against the basic structure of Constitution.
Citation : 1980 AIR 1789, 1981 SCR (1) 206
Indiankanoon.org link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1939993/
Journey through the years – Public Interest Litigation (PILs) in India
Let’s begin with the foremost judgment that raised curtain for Public Interest Litigations (PILs) in India, delivered by none other than the Super Judge, Shri Krishnaiyer, V.R.
Municipal Council, Ratlam Vs Shri Vardhichand & Ors on 29 July, 1980
The first public interest litigation case in India.
Citation : 1980 AIR 1622, 1981 SCR (1) 97
Indiankanoon.org link : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/440471/
[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
M.G.M.Joseph Anand Vs Suvitha Suganthi on 28 August, 2018
Lying knife had the audacity to file criminal and DV cases, after the husband obtained ex parte divorce decree. Both are quashed as improbable to believe cases. Despite this, husband offered to pay 2 Crore rupees to lying knife.
As always, cases are quashed but no malicious prosecution proceedings were initiated by Hon’ble High Court of Madras.
Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015
In this Dipak Misra dole out judgment, even the judicially separated folks are also within the ambit of Aggrieved person. The Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected the view taken by lower courts and held that the status of the parties did not become different due to a decree of judicial separation. There is a distinction between the decree for divorce and the decree of judicial separation. So, the finding of the lower courts, that the parties having been judicially separated, the appellant had ceased to be an aggrieved person, is “wholly unsustainable”.
Citations: [2016 AJR 1 545], [2016 ALD CRL SC 1 46], [2016 CALLT SC 1 17], [2016 JCC SC 1 31], [2016 JLJR 1 93], [2016 LW 3 193], [2016 NCC 1 239], [2016 PLJR 1 158], [2016 SCC 2 705], [2016 WLN SC 1 52], [2015 AD SC 12 101], [2015 CCR SC 4 256], [2015 CRIMES SC 4 384], [2015 DMC SC 3 823], [2015 KLT SC 4 999], [2015 SCALE 12 521], [2015 UC 3 2229], [2015 JT 11 132], [2015 SLT 8 675], [2015 AIOL 4593], [2016 CRLJ SC 330], [2016 SCC CRI 1 810], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 1229], [2016 GUJ LH 1 1], [2016 AIC 157 198], [2016 ALLCC SC 92 443], [2016 CGLJ SC 1 105], [2016 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 152], [2016 RCR CIVIL SC 1 151], [2016 SCC CIV 2 223]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/124775488/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b3ede561097e45a4e4ac
The index page is here.
