Supreme Court Decisions/Judgements Directory

Shafin Jahan vs Asokan K M & Ors J U D G M E N T Dipak Misra ,Told That Though She Can Communicate In English, She May Not Be Able To Effectively Articulate In That Language Hence, We Requested Mr vs Giri, Learned Senior Counsel, Who Also Represents The State Of Kerala To Assist In Translating The Questions Posed To Her In Court And The Answers Given By Her The Range Of Questions That We Posed Basically Pertained To Her Qualifications, Interest In Studies, Perception Of Life AndHave Been Told That She Is Presently Staying In Kerala Bhawan At New Delhi Mr vs Giri, Learned Senior Counsel Assures This Court That She Shall Be Permitted To Stay In Kerala Bhawan Till She Moves To Salem We Make It Clear That The Nia Investigation Shall Continue In AccordanceIn Cox vs Hakes1, Lord Halsbury Observed As Under : ­ "Cox vs Hakes1, Lord Halsbury Observed As Under : ­ " For A Period Extending As Far Back As Our Legal History, The Writ Of Habeas Corpus Has Been Regarded As One Of The Most Important Safeguards Of The Liberty Of The Subject If Upon The Return To That Writ It Was Adjudged That No Legal Ground Was Made ToApplication To Every Judge Or Every Court In Turn, And Each Court Or Judge Was Bound To Consider The Question Independently And Not To Be Influenced By The Previous Decisions Refusing Discharge If Discharge Followed, The Legality Of That Discharge Could Never Be Brought In Question No Writ Of Error Or Demurrer Was Allowed " 21 In Secretary Of State For Home Affairs vs O’Brien2, It Has Been Observed That:­ “ It Is Perhaps The Most Important Writ Known To The Constitutional Law Of England, Affording As It Does A Swift And Imperative RemedyHas Through The Ages Been Jealously Maintained By The Courts Of Law As A Check Upon The Illegal Usurpation Of Power By The Executive At The Cost Of The Liege ” 22 In Ranjit Singh vs State Of Pepsu ( Now Punjab)3Ranjit Singh vs State Of Pepsu ( Now Punjab)3, After Referring To Greene vs Secy Of States For Home Affairs4, This Court Ruled:­ “4 The Whole Object Of Proceedings For A Writ Of Habeas Corpus Is To Make Them Expeditious, To Keep Them As Free From Technicality As Possible And To Keep Them As Simple As Possible ” The Bench Quoted Lord Wright Who, In Greene’S Case, Had Stated:­ “ The Incalculable Value Of Habeas Corpus Is That It Enables The Immediate Determination Of The Right To TheIn Kanu Sanyal vs District Magistrate, Darjeeling And Others5, A Constitution Bench, After Adverting To The Brief History Of The Writ Of Habeas Corpus, Opined That It Is Essentially A Procedural Writ That DealsThe Ground For The Detention The Writ Thus Became A Means Of Testing The Legality Of The Detention And In This Form It May Be Regarded As The Immediate Ancestor Of The Modern Writ Of Habeas Corpus The Writ Of Habeas Corpus Cum Causa Was Utilised By The Common Law Courts During The Fifteenth Century As An Accompaniment Of The Writs Of Certiorari And Privilege To Assert Their Jurisdiction Against The Local And Franchise Courts ” 25 In Ware vs Sanders6, A Reference Was Made To The Law

Pralhad Shankarrao Tajale & Ors vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary ( Revenue ) & Anr

Ummer vs Pottengal Subida & Ors

Abdulrasakh vs K P Mohammed & Ors

Prahlad Shankarrao Tajale vs The State Of Maharashtra Thru Is ...

Shafin Jahan vs Asokan K.M.

Chairman, Board Of Trustees, ... vs M/S Arebee Star Maritime ...

Union Of India vs M/S Intercontinental ...

Bhupendra Kumar Chimanbhai Kachiya Patel vs Divisional Controller Gsrtc NadiadPrakashbhai Ishwarlal Dave vs Divisional Controller Gsrtc JunagarhGhanshyam Pratapsinh Parmar vs Divisional Controller Gsrtc RajkotPradhyumansinh Lakhuba Jadeja vs Divisional Controller Gsrtc

Union Of India & Anr vs M/S Intercontinental Consultants And Technocrats Pvt Ltd W