admin

[Civil Appeal No. 4556 of 2014 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.31659 of 2011] [Contempt Petition(C) No.232 of 2013 In C.A. No. 4556 of 2014 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.31659 of 2011] [Contempt Petition(C) No.7 of 2013 In C.A. No. 4556 of 2014 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.31659 of 2011] SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, […]

[Writ Petition (Civil) No.400 of 2012] [Writ Petition (Civil) No.604 of 2013] K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Seldom, our society realizes or cares to realize the trauma, agony and pain which the members of Transgender community undergo, nor appreciates the innate feelings of the members of the Transgender community, especially of those whose mind and body

[Criminal Appeal No. 872 of 2014 @Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.988 of 2014] Chandramauli Kr. Prasad Petitioner Licil Antony happens to be the wife of detenu Antony Morris and aggrieved by the order dated 6th of November, 2013 passed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 412 of

[Criminal Appeal No. 1682 of 2005] Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The substantial issues raised in this appeal, in which the conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, primarily relate to the presence of the convict at the place and time of the murder of Gangamma, the analysis of the fingerprint evidence recovered from the place

[Criminal Appeal No. 666 of 2009] Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The question before us is whether the appellants are guilty of an offence punishable under Section 304-B or under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). In our opinion, they are guilty of an offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. The

[Criminal Appeal No. 1508 of 2005] (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. There were eight accused. They were Bashisht Rai-A1, Jai Prakash Rai-A2, Ashok Rai-A3, Awadh Narain Rai-A4, Hirdaya Narain-A5, Umesh Chandra Rai-A6, Loknath-A7 and Ramnath Rai-A8. All of them were tried in Sessions Trial No. 215 of 1979. Bashisht Rai-A1 was tried for the

[Civil Appeal No. 4506 of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) No. 33244 of 2012] Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been directed against the judgment dated 18th September, 2012 passed by the High Court of Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Port Blair. By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of

[Civil Appeal No. 4469 of 2014 arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.16312 of 2010] SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The matter relates to an Execution Proceeding in which the Executing Court put a house bearing CTS No.1610/B to auction and after rejecting the objections raised by the judgment-debtor, Respondent no.1 herein, confirmed

[Civil Appeal No. 2111 of 2009] Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 1. By an office memorandum dated 26.10.1995, departmental action was initiated against the appellant who was then holding the post of Constable. He was then posted in the IInd Battalion, Delhi Armed Police, Delhi. The aforesaid action was initiated against the appellant on account of

[Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 2007] State of Rajasthan Vs. Raju @ Raj Kumar & ANR. [Criminal Appeal No. 1073 of 2007] Dipak Misra, J. 1. The present appeals, by special leave, have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 14.2.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench at