10 Judgments of Supreme Court that Everyone Should Know

 10 Judgments of Supreme Court that Everyone Should Know

There are some decisions which everyone should know. 

List is as follows : - 

1. Lalita Kumari v Govt of UP [2013] GCtR 210 (SC) - If the information given clearly mentions the commission of a cognizable offence, there is no other option but to register an FIR forthwith.
2. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India [1978] GCtR 4065 (SC) - Articles dealing with different fundamental rights contained in Part III of the Constitution of India do not represent entirely separate streams of rights which do not mingle at many points. They are all parts of an integrated scheme in the Constitution.
3. YS Jagan Mohan Reddy v CBI [2013] GCtR 338 (SC) - Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail.
4. CIT v Chhabil Dass Aggarwal [2013] GCtR 751 (SC) - High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field. Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.
5. United Bank of India v Satyawati Tandon [2010] GCtR 1357 (SC) - High Court will ordinarily not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and that this rule applies with greater rigour in matters involving recovery of taxes, cess, fees, other types of public money and the dues of banks and other financial institutions.
6. Associate Builders v DDA [2014] GCtR 1661 (SC) - It is important to note that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 was enacted to replace the 1940 Arbitration Act in order to provide for an arbitral procedure which is fair, efficient and capable of meeting the needs of arbitration; also to provide that the tribunal gives reasons for an arbitral award; to ensure that the tribunal remains within the limits of its jurisdiction; and to minimize the supervisory roles of courts in the arbitral process.
7. Rajnesh v Neha [2020] GCtR 304 (SC) - The party claiming maintenance either as a spouse, or as a partner in a civil union, live-in relationship, common law marriage, should be required to file a concise application for interim maintenance with limited pleadings, alongwith an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the concerned court, as a mandatory requirement.
8. Sarla Verma v DTC [2009] GCtR 1241 (SC) - Basically only three facts need to be established by the claimants for assessing compensation in the case of death : (a) age of the deceased; (b) income of the deceased; and the (c) the number of dependents.
9. NICL v Pranay Sethi [2017] GCtR 836 (SC) - In cases for compensation under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while determining the income, an addition of 50% of actual salary to the income of the deceased towards future prospects, where the deceased had a permanent job and was below the age of 40 years, should be made. 
10. Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda v State of Maharashtra [1984] GCtR 4269 (SC) - Five golden principles, which constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.