List of Important Leading Judgements

  1. Bombay High Court Upload Date - 2/20/2010

    Ramkrishna Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., Maliwada, Ahmednagar v. Shri Rajendra Bhagchand Warma 2010

    Bombay High Court held - Banks cannot prosecute borrowers under section 138, Negotiable Instrument Act, if blank post-dated cheques issued by them as collateral security are dishonoured. The court upheld the acquittal of Ahmednagar resident Rajendra Warma, who was prosecuted after a blank cheque issued by him for a loan was dishonoured. ​

    ''It is doubtful if the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can apply to a case in which a blank or post-dated cheque is obtained by a bank or money lender before or while sanctioning or disbursing loan amounts as security for the loan,'' said Justice P R Borkar. The order is likely to come as a huge setback to lending agencies who ask borrowers to deposit blank post-dated cheques as security. ''Law-makers must not have intended or imagined that money lenders or banks would obtain blank or post-dated cheques while sanctioning/disbursing loans as securities and would use them to make debtors/borrowers repay the loan under threat of prosecution and punishment (under the cheque-bouncing law),'' added the judge".
     


    View Judgement


  2. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Upload Date - 11/30/2016

    MUKARRAB ETC. Versus STATE OF U.P.

    BONE OSSIFICATION TEST MEDICAL IS NOT CONCLUSIVE PROOF OF AGE- Medical evidence as to the age of a person though a very useful guiding factor is not conclusive and has to be considered along with other circumstances. Bench said "We hold that ossification test cannot be regarded as conclusive when it comes to ascertaining the age of a person"


    View Judgement


  3. Supreme Court of India Upload Date - 11/30/2016

    SHYAM NARAYAN CHOUKSEY Petitioner(s) VERSUS UNION OF INDIA Respondent(s)

    NATIONAL ANTHEM CASE- it is the duty of every person to show respect when the National Anthem is played or recited or sung. Apex court passed following directions -

    (a) There shall be no commercial exploitation to give financial advantage or any kind of benefit.

    (b) There shall not be dramatization of the National Anthem and it should not be included as a part of any variety show.

    (c) Not be printed on any object and also never be displayed in such a manner at such places which  may be disgraceful to its status and tantamount to disrespect. 

    (d) All the cinema halls in India shall play the National Anthem before the feature film starts and all present in the hall are obliged to stand up to show respect to the National Anthem. 

    (e) Prior to the National Anthem is played or sung in the cinema hall on the screen, the entry and exit doors shall remain closed so that no one can create any kind of disturbance which will amount to disrespect to the National Anthem. After the National Anthem is played or sung, the doors can be opened. 

    (f) When the National Anthem shall be played in the Cinema Halls, it shall be with the National Flag on the screen. 

    (g) The abridge version of the National Anthem made by any one for whatever reason shall not be played or displayed.


    View Judgement


  4. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Upload Date - 11/22/2016

    RAMESH AND OTHERS V. STATE OF HARYANA , CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2526 OF 2014

    CONVICTION DESPITE WITNESS TURNED HOSTILE-

    it is held by Apex court "In my fieldwork experiences, witnesses become “hostile” not only when  they are directly implicated in a case filed by the police, but  also  when  they are on the side of the plaintiff's  party. During  the  often  rather  long period that elapses between the police investigation and the  trial  itself, often observed, the party who has lodged the complaint  (and  who  becomes the main witness) can irreparably compromise the case with the  other  party by means of compensation, threat or blackmail."

    The State has a definite role to play in protecting the  witnesses,  to start with at least in sensitive cases involving those  in  power, who  has political patronage and could wield muscle and money power, to  avert  trial getting tainted and derailed and truth becoming a casualty. As  a  protector of its citizens it has to ensure that during a trial in  Court  the  witness could safely depose truth  without  any  fear  of  being  haunted  by  those against whom he had deposed. Every State  has  a  constitutional  obligation and duty to protect the life and  liberty  of  its  citizens.


    View Judgement


  5. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Upload Date - 11/26/2013

    Indra Sarma Versus V.K.V. Sarma , New Delhi, November 26, 2013

    •   Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a  crime  nor  a  sin though socially unacceptable in this country.   The  decision  to  marry  or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is  intensely  personal.
    •   We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether  a  “live-in relationship” would amount to a “relationship in  the  nature  of  marriage” falling within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section  2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short  “the DV Act”) and the disruption of such a relationship by failure to maintain  a women involved in such a relationship amounts to “domestic violence”  within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act.


    View Judgement


  6. Supreme Court of India Upload Date - 10/4/2016

    RAJA AND OTHERS VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1767 OF 2011 - JUDGEMENT DATED-OCTOBER 4, 2016.

    Sex Workers cannot lodge a sexual assualt (Rape) complaint against their customers if they refuse to pay money. Further held though the evidence given by a woman alleging rape must get importance from the trial court, but it could not be taken as 'GOSPEL TRUTH'


    View Judgement


  7. Supreme Court of India Upload Date - 9/21/2016

    SHARAD BIRDICHAND SARDA V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA; AIR 1984 1622

    IMPORTANT SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT-

    GOLDEN PRINCIPLES IN CASE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES-

    1.The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

    2. The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

    3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

    4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved and;

    5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not o leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.


    View Judgement


  8. Supreme Court of India Upload Date - 5/9/2011

    Bhagwan Dass versus State (NCT) of Delhi dated 09/05/2011

    Honour Killing comes within the purview of rarest of the case, so deserve death penalty.


    View Judgement


  9. Supreme Court of India Upload Date - 9/7/2016

    Youth Bar Association of India Vs. Union of India

    Copy of first information report shall be made available online except heinous offences


    View Judgement


  10. Delhi High Court Upload Date - 5/29/2015

    GAURAV MAGGO versus THE STATE OF NCT, DELHI

    Section 376 IPC- Sexual Relation on pretext of marriage by Married Man is not a Rape-The woman consents to have a sexual relations with a married man who promises to marry her, continues the relationship and gets impregnated, then it is an act of "promiscuity" on her part and cannot be said as one induced by a misconception of fact and does not amount to Rape.


    View Judgement