![CHAITRA NAGAMMANAVAR vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA [2024]](https://legalvidhiya.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/image-16-360x240.png)
CITATION [2024] 6 S.C.R. 471 YEAR OF JUDGMENT 2024 STATUES REFERRED IN THIS CASE Constitutional Law, Civil Services Law, Education Law APPELLANT Chaitra Nagammanavar RESPONDENT State of Karnataka and others BENCH Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Aravind Kumar INTRODUCTION The case of Chaitra Nagammanavar v. State of Karnataka & Ors (2024] 6 S.C.R. Read more…
CITATION 2024 (3) SCC 245 YEAR OF JUDGMENT 2024 STATUES REFERRED IN THIS CASE Land Acquisition Act, 1894 PLAINTIFF Union of India DEFENDENT Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy’s Legal Representatives BENCH Justice D.Y. Chandrachud Justice P.S. Narasimha INTRODUCTION The case of Union of India vs. Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) Through His LRS Read more…
CITATION Special Leave to appeal (Criminal) No. 5583 of 2022 DATE OF JUDGEMENT April 9, 2024 COURT SUPREME COURT OF INDIA APPELLANT M/S RAJCO STEEL ENTERPRISES RESPONDENT KAVITA SARAFF AND ANR. BRENCH HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE Anirudha BOSE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR INTRODUCTION This appeal before the Supreme Court arises Read more…
![THE GENERAL MANAGER, M/S. BARSUA IRON ORE MINES Vs. THE VICE PRESIDENT, UNITED MINES MAZDOOR UNION [2024]](https://legalvidhiya.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/image-13-360x240.png)
CITATION [2024] 4 S.C.R. 63; 2024 INSC 264 YEAR OF JUDGMENT April 2, 2024 STATUES REFERRED IN THIS CASE Service Law, Labour Law, Evidence Law. PLAINTIFF The General Manager, M/S Barsua Iron Ore Mines (representing the employer) DEFENDENT The Vice President, United Mines Mazdoor Union and Others (representing the employee Read more…
![ANURADHA BHASIN VS UNION OF INDIA [2020]](https://legalvidhiya.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/image-11-360x240.png)
CITATION 2020 SCC Online SC 2 YEAR OF JUDGMENT 10/01/2020 STATUES REFERRED IN THIS CASE Temporary Suspension of Telecom Services (Public Emergency or Public Safety) Rules, 2017—Section: R. 2(1), R. 2(2)Telegraph Act, 1885; Section: 5(2)Information Technology Act, 2000; Section: 69-ACriminal Procedure Code, 1973. Section: 144 PLAINTIFF Anuradha Bhasin and Ors. Read more…
CITATION [2024] 5 S.C.R. 510 YEAR OF JUDGMENT 2024 STATUES REFERRED IN THIS CASE Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 PETITIONER Dolly Rani RESPONDENT Manish Kumar Chanchal BENCH B.V. Nagarathna INTRODUCTION The Dolly Rani vs. Manish Kumar Chanchal case of 2024 attracted great attention to the legal prerequisites for a legitimate marriage Read more…
This article is written by of Anumodan Tiwari of University Institute of Legal Studies, Chandigarh University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya Introduction The landmark case of Joseph Shine v. Union of India (2018)[1] was a defining moment in Indian legal history, as the Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of Read more…
![Hakam Singh v. M/s. Gammon (India) Ltd. [1971] INSC 9 (8 January 1971)](https://legalvidhiya.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/image-159-360x240.png)
Citation 1971 AIR 740, 1971 SCC (1) 286 Date 08 January 1971 Court Name Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Plaintiff / appellant / petitioner Hakam Singh Defendant / respondent. M/s. Gammon (India) Ltd. (a construction Company) Judges Hon’ble Forum Chief justice J.C Shah and Hon’ble Justice K.S. Hegde Introduction The Read more…
CITATION AIR2000DELHI141, 2000(52)DRJ437 DATE 14 DECEMBER, 1999 COURT NAME DELHI HIGH COURT PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/PETITIONER PUSHPA DEVI (APPELLANT) DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT. BIMLA DEVI (RESPONDENT) JUDGES JUSTICE S. N. VARIAVA(CJ)JUSTICE S.K.MAHAJANJUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL INTRODUCTION “Delay defeats justice”, the phrase which probably can’t untie from the legal machinery but time and again Courts have tried to Read more…
This article is written by Dhaani Gautam of 2nd Year of B. Com. LLB, of Institute of Law, Nirma University, an intern under Legal Vidhiya ABSTRACT In Fisher v. Bell (1961), the court addressed the fundamental distinction between an “invitation to treat” and an “offer” in contract law. The case Read more…
