data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/badab/badab32186b75fbbac4f12fa895e2e01db9bdfde" alt=""
2023 SCC Vol. 1 Part 1
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 33 — Power of modification of award under — Scope of: Award can be modified
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 33 — Power of modification of award under — Scope of: Award can be modified
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — Ss. 14(1)(a) and 2(1)(e) r/w Ss. 11(5) and 11(6) — Application seeking termination of
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 7 R. 11(d) and Or. 14 R. 2: Limitation as a ground for rejecting
Constitution of India — Arts. 300-A and 31 — Expropriation of private property by State — Compensation — Entitlement: State
Madhya Pradesh High Court: G.S. Ahluwalia, J. dismissed a petition which was filed against the order passed by Twelfth Civil
Gujarat High Court: B.N. Karia, J. rejected an application under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
Dwarka Courts, Delhi: Rahul Jain, Metropolitan Magistrate, while addressing a matter regarding dishonour of cheque, held that mere assertion of non-receipt of
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., while setting aside the conclusion of the Metropolitan Magistrate and upholding the intervention by Sessions Court
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Hemant Gupta* and V. Ramasubramanian, JJ., reversed concurrent findings of Trial Court and Punjab and
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, Srinagar: Sanjay Dhar, J., addressed a matter with regard to providing maintenance to a minor
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Avneesh Jhingan, J., entertained a petition under Section 482 CrPC where the petitioner was aggrieved by the
Bombay High Court: Anuja Prabhudessai, J., opined that where the witness is of tender age (as in the instant case before the
Sikkim High Court: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J., dismissed the second appeal explaining that the second appeal is maintainable before the High Court
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Tarlok Singh Chauhan J. directed all the Panchayat Secretaries in the State of Himachal Pradesh to provide death
South East, Saket Courts, New Delhi: Naresh Kumar Laka, Additional District Judge, decided a suit with respect to partition and permanent injunction.
Bombay High Court: Pained to note the permitting of questions by the Lower Court which crossed all lines of dignity of a
The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives.
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ. refused to interfere in the judgment passed by the
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of Section 92 Proviso (6) of the Evidence Act, 1872, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ* and