Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Landmark court decisions in India substantially change the interpretation of existing law. Such a landmark decision may settle the law in more than one way. In present-day common law legal systems it may do so by: [1] [2] Establishing a significant new legal principle or concept;
Landmark court decisions, in present-day common law legal systems, establish precedents that determine a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially affect the interpretation of existing law. "Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used ...
S. R. Bommai v. Union of India; Sarla Mudgal, & others. v. Union of India; Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Mohd. Ahmed Khan v. Shah Bano Begum; Shreya Singhal v. Union of India; Sonipat-Kharkhoda IMT land case; Stanislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh; State of Madras v. Champakam Dorairajan; Supriyo v. Union of India; Suresh ...
Pages in category "Indian case law" ... List of landmark court decisions in India; M. ... Aruna Shanbaug case; Star India v. Leo Burnett; State of Uttar Pradesh v ...
Unni Krishnan v. State of A.P. and Others (1993 (1) SCC 645) R K Sabharwal v. State of Punjab AIR 1995 SC 1371 : (1995) 2 SCC 745; Union of India v. Varpal Singh AIR 1996 SC 448; Ajitsingh Januja & Others v. State of Punjab AIR 1996 SC 1189; Ashok Kumar Gupta: Vidyasagar Gupta v. State of Uttar Pradesh 1997 (5) SCC 201; Jagdish Lal and others v.
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) is a landmark judgement of the Supreme Court of India, which declared transgender people the 'third gender', affirmed that the fundamental rights granted under the Constitution of India will be equally applicable to them, and gave them the right to self-identification of their gender as male, female or third gender.
Kasturilal Ralia Ram V. The State of Uttar Pradesh 1965 AIR 1039; 1965 SCR (1) 375 : is a Landmark case on Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 300(1)-State Liability for tortious acts of its servants. Owen Diaz vs. Tesla, 137 million dollars in damages to a Tesla, Inc. employee who faced racial harassment. [1] [2]
On 18 December 1996, the Supreme Court of India gave the verdict in D. K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal.The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) had started as a result of a letter sent by D. K. Basu, a former Calcutta High Court judge and then executive chairman of Legal Aid Services of West Bengal, to the Chief Justice of India (CJI) on 26 August 1986.