[Criminal Appeal Nos.1095-1097 of 2011] C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. These three appeals are preferred against the common judgment dated 16.7.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1288 of 2006, 1362 of 2006 and 1408 of 2006. 2. The appellants herein are five in number and were […]
Recent SC Judgement – Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh – 3.06.14 Read More »
[Civil Appeal No. 6718 of 2013] Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 1. We are informed that Dr. Aloys Wobben (appellant no.1, hereinafter referred to as, ‘the appellant’) is a scientist-engineer. It is also the case of the appellant, that he has to his credit several inventions in the field of wind turbine generators, and wind energy
Recent SC Judgement – Dr. Aloys Wobben and another Vs. Yogesh Mehra and others – 2.06.14 Read More »
NEW DELHI: In a reprieve to bar owners in Kerala, the Supreme Court on Thursday asked the state government to maintain status quo and not implement its new liquor policy till September 30. The SC also asked the Kerala HC to decide expeditiously pleas challenging the state government’s new liquor policy, which are listed for
SC orders status quo till September 30 on Kerala’s new liquor policy Read More »
The magistrate returned the chargesheet with directions to police that the case should be re-investigated as there were many lacuna in the sections slapped on Shah, they said. The rejection left the Akhilesh Yadav government red-faced as the BJP state unit has alleged that the Samajwadi Party government added new sections — some serious and
A CPI (M) activist on Thursday surrendered before a magistrate court in Kannur in connection with the murder of an RSS leader. This came after the police issued a lookout notice against the CPI(M) leader. Police identified the surrendered CPI (M) activist as Vikraman, who was suspected among a gang that hacked to death RSS
RSS leader’s murder: CPM activist surrenders in Kerala court Read More »
Former Telecom Minister Dayanidhi Maran had “pressurised” and “forced” Chennai-based telecom promoter C Sivasankaran to sell his stakes in Aircel and two subsidiary firms to Malaysian firm Maxis Group in 2006, the CBI on Thursday told a special court. “Accused number one (Dayanidhi Maran) forced Sivasankaran to sell his companies. He (Sivasankaran) sold his three
[Civil Appeal No. 5765 of 2014 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 20041 of 2013] SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi rendered in OMP No.46 of 2013 dated 22nd March, 2013. By the aforesaid judgment, the Delhi
Recent SC Judgement – Reliance Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India – 28.05.14 Read More »
[Civil Appeal No. 3879 of 2013] A.K. SIKRI, J. This is a statutory appeal, preferred by Union of India, as provided under Section 31 of the Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AFT Act’). The appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated April 15, 2011 passed by the Armed
[Arbitration Petition No. 34 of 2013] SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 11(4) read with Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arbitration Act”), with a prayer to appoint the nominee arbitrator of the Respondent and to further constitute the arbitral tribunal, by
Recent SC Judgement – Union of India Vs. Col. G.S. Grewal – 28.05.14 Read More »
[Criminal Appeal No(S).1570 of 2010] O R D E R A.K. SIKRI,J. The appellant was running a small kirana shop at 96-A, MIG Flats, Opposite G.T.B. Hospital, G.T.B. Enclave, Shahdara, Delhi. On 11.3.1993, some officials from the Food Adulteration Department visited his shop which was being run under the name and style “M/s Mithlesh General
Recent SC Judgement – Mithilesh Vs. State of NCT, Delhi – 28.05.14 Read More »
In accordance with the Bar Council of India rules, Law Intellect India does not solicit work or advertise through this website. By clicking ‘I agree,’ you acknowledge that you are accessing this information voluntarily and that no attorney-client relationship is created through this site.
The content on this website is for informational purposes only and should not be taken as legal advice. We disclaim any liability for actions taken based on the information provided. For personalized legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Please review and accept our Privacy Policy before using this website. All intellectual property rights related to the website and its content belong to the Firm.
