Smt. P. Leelavathi (D) by LRs .. Appellant Versus V. Shankarnarayana Rao (D) by LRs .. Respondent

whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and merely because some financial assistance has been given by the father to the sons to purchase the properties, can the transactions be said to benami in nature? – NO – TRIAL COURT DISMISSED THE SUIT FOR PARTITION – HIGH COURT CONFIRMED THE SAME – APEX… Read More Smt. P. Leelavathi (D) by LRs .. Appellant Versus V. Shankarnarayana Rao (D) by LRs .. Respondent

JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THR. LRS.& ANOTHER …Appellants VERSUS SHIVNATH & OTHERS …Respondents

whether the High Court was right in upholding the judgment of the first Appellate Court by observing that in the absence of any order of abandonment or revocation of the patta given to the respondents-plaintiffs, grant of patta (Ex.D-20) in 1929 in favour of the appellants-defendants was illegal and that the appellants-defendants cannot claim right… Read More JAGDISH PRASAD PATEL (DEAD) THR. LRS.& ANOTHER …Appellants VERSUS SHIVNATH & OTHERS …Respondents

254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States (1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause ( 2 ), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an 18 existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.”

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 8793-8794 OF 2013 ATUL CHANDRA DAS (D) THROUGH LRS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS RABINDRA NATH BHATTACHARYA (D) THR. LRS. & ORS.ETC. RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T K.M. JOSEPH, J. The appellants are the legal representatives of one Atul Chandra… Read More 254. Inconsistency between laws made by Parliament and laws made by the Legislatures of States (1) If any provision of a law made by the Legislature of a State is repugnant to any provision of a law made by Parliament which Parliament is competent to enact, or to any provision of an existing law with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the Concurrent List, then, subject to the provisions of clause ( 2 ), the law made by Parliament, whether passed before or after the law made by the Legislature of such State, or, as the case may be, the existing law, shall prevail and the law made by the Legislature of the State shall, to the extent of the repugnancy, be void. (2) Where a law made by the Legislature of a State with respect to one of the matters enumerated in the concurrent List contains any provision repugnant to the provisions of an earlier law made by Parliament or an 18 existing law with respect to that matter, then, the law so made by the Legislature of such State shall, if it has been reserved for the consideration of the President and has received his assent, prevail in that State: Provided that nothing in this clause shall prevent Parliament from enacting at any time any law with respect to the same matter including a law adding to, amending, varying or repealing the law so made by the Legislature of the State.”

whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. – No

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 602 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.8074 of 2018) Tabrez Khan @ Guddu & Ors. ….Appellant(s) VERSUS The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted. This appeal… Read More whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the application filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. – No

injuries found on the face of the accused. It is pertinent to note that the accused failed to provide any explanation as to how he had incurred the aforesaid injuries. Further, the injuries on the body of the deceased also indicate signs of struggle. Furthermore, the post­mortem suggests that the death of deceased was not suicidal but rather she was hanged after she had lost consciousness. All the aforesaid circumstances further substantiate the voluntary extra­judicial confession of the accused made before P.W­4. Moreover, the fact of the commission of death by hanging corroborated by the Exhibit P­12, (Panchayatnama) which notes that the deceased was hanging from the roof with the help of a bed sheet. It is noted that the Exhibit P­12, (Panchayatnama) stands proved by the Sub­Inspector (P.W.8). The extra­judicial confession of the accused, therefore, finds independent reliable corroboration from the aforesaid circumstances

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 2122 OF 2010 MANOJ KUMAR … APPELLANT Versus THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND … RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T The present matter is placed before us by virtue of referral order dated 22.05.2014 wherein the following question was placed for… Read More injuries found on the face of the accused. It is pertinent to note that the accused failed to provide any explanation as to how he had incurred the aforesaid injuries. Further, the injuries on the body of the deceased also indicate signs of struggle. Furthermore, the post­mortem suggests that the death of deceased was not suicidal but rather she was hanged after she had lost consciousness. All the aforesaid circumstances further substantiate the voluntary extra­judicial confession of the accused made before P.W­4. Moreover, the fact of the commission of death by hanging corroborated by the Exhibit P­12, (Panchayatnama) which notes that the deceased was hanging from the roof with the help of a bed sheet. It is noted that the Exhibit P­12, (Panchayatnama) stands proved by the Sub­Inspector (P.W.8). The extra­judicial confession of the accused, therefore, finds independent reliable corroboration from the aforesaid circumstances

the claim of the appellants is that they have been in lawful possession of the land for doing their business and, therefore, the respondents­the State Authorities and 3 the Temple Management cannot dispossess any of them from their individual shops without following the due process of law. 7. Since the appellants were threatened by the respondents of their dispossession from their shops by issuance of notices dated 14/16.02.2018, they felt aggrieved and filed the writ petitions in the High Court, out of which these appeals arise, against the respondents claiming inter alia the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the notice and also for issuance of prohibitory writ restraining the respondents from taking any action of dispossessing them from their respective shops. – High court wrongly dismissed as the respondents have not taken action as per Endowments Act

NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3461­3505 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.3007­3051 of 2019) S. Kumar ….Appellant(s) VERSUS The Commissioner & Ors. ….Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL Nos.3506­3515 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.2718­2727/2019) CIVIL APPEAL No.3516 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 2984/2019)… Read More the claim of the appellants is that they have been in lawful possession of the land for doing their business and, therefore, the respondents­the State Authorities and 3 the Temple Management cannot dispossess any of them from their individual shops without following the due process of law. 7. Since the appellants were threatened by the respondents of their dispossession from their shops by issuance of notices dated 14/16.02.2018, they felt aggrieved and filed the writ petitions in the High Court, out of which these appeals arise, against the respondents claiming inter alia the relief of issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the notice and also for issuance of prohibitory writ restraining the respondents from taking any action of dispossessing them from their respective shops. – High court wrongly dismissed as the respondents have not taken action as per Endowments Act