Indian Constitution

Davinder Singh Versus State of Punjab  Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 12 of 2015 Davinder Singh ... Appellant Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent JUDGEMENT M. M. Sundresh, J. 1. The appellant stood charged and convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 376, 452 and 506 of Indian Penal Code 1860, (hereinafter referred to as IPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Amritsar, which was confirmed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Criminal Appeal No. S.1106 SB of 2003. Seeking to overturn the aforesaid decisions, the present appeal is filed. BRIEF FACTS: 2. As per the prosecution version, the appellant came to the residence of the prosecutrix and committed the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC, brandishing a knife. The brother of the victim namely Pargat Singh came home and 1 upon seeing him, the appellant took

STATE OF PUNJAB VERSUS KEWAL KRISHAN CASE 1 Landmark Cases  of India /  सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले REPORTABLE  IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION  CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2128/2014 STATE OF PUNJAB ..APPELLANT(S)  VERSUS KEWAL KRISHAN ..RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T 1. Counsel for the appellant is present. None has appeared for the respondent. The office has submitted a report that notice has been served on the sole respondent, yet no one has entered appearance on his behalf. 2. We have heard Mr. Mohit Siwach, learned counsel for the appellant. 3. This appeal assails the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana (for short the High Court) dated 01.05.2012 rendered in Criminal Appeal No. 372 of 2002, whereby the judgment and order of the trial Court convicting and sentencing the respondent (Kewal Krishan) under Section 302, IPC has been set aside and the 2 appellant (respondent herein) has been acquitted of the charges for which he w

 BANK OF BARODA & ORS.  VERSUS BALJIT SINGH Case 1  REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).624/2017 BANK OF BARODA & ORS. Appellant(s) VERSUS BALJIT SINGH Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T This appeal arises out of a judgment and decree passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in RSA No.338 of 2011 dated 11.12.2015. By the said judgment, the High Court has set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 16.12.2009 passed in C.A. No.75 of 2008 and has restored the judgment of the Trial Court passed in Original Suit No.201 of 2005. Consequently, the relief sought for by the respondent in the suit, i.e., declaration and mandatory injunction vis-a-vis his appointment in the appellant-Bank on compassionate basis has been granted. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the respondent’s father who was working in the appellant-Bank, died in harness on 16.05.1999. As on that date, the appellant-Bank had a Scheme in

To provide some information, here are ten landmark judgments related to various provisions of the Indian Constitution: Keshavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) - This case established the doctrine of the basic structure, which limits the power of Parliament to amend certain fundamental features of the Constitution. Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain (1975) - The court declared the election of then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to be void, leading to significant changes in election law. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) - This judgment expanded the scope of the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 and emphasized procedural fairness. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India (1980) - The court struck down certain provisions of the 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act, asserting the principle of basic structure once again. S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) - The court established guidelines for the imposition of President's rule in a state and reaffirmed the f

Jurisdiction : 129. Supreme Court to be a court of record The Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court including the power to punish for contempt of itself. • Inherent Power -  Subramanian Swamy vs Arun Shourie  • Compliance – Subrata Roy Sahara vs Union of India • Two objects of Contempt Jurisdiction – Mininderjit Singh Bitta vs Union of India • Special Jurisdiction – SCBA vs Union of India • Truth as a Defence – Subramanian Swamy vs Arun Shourie • Unfettered Suo Moto power of Contempt – Subramanian Swamy vs Arun Shourie 131. Original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the Supreme Court shall, to the exclusion of any other court, have original jurisdiction in any dispute. (a) between the Government of India and one or more States; or (b) between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other States on the other; or (c) between two or more States,