admin

[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

[Civil Appeal No. 4470 of 2014 arising out of SLP(C) No. 32091 of 2012] Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 23.04.2012 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition

[Criminal Appeal No.369 of 2006] K.S. Radhakrishnan, J. 1. We are, in this case, concerned with the gruesome murder of a 22 year old girl by name Diana Clare Routley (hereinafter referred to as “Diana”), a New Zealander, for which the trial Court awarded death sentence to the appellant, which was affirmed by the High

[Criminal Appeal No.1272 of 2012] Senthilkumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [Criminal Appeal No. 787 of 2013] (SMT.) RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. 1. The present appeals filed under Section 19 of the Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (“the TADA”) are directed against the judgment and order dated 27/06/2012 passed by the Principal Sessions

[Civil Appeal No. 4454 of 2014 arising out of SLP(C) No.30146 of 2012] SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants-Nagar Palika Parishad, Mihona (hereinafter referred to as “Nagar Palika”) against the judgment dated 11th April, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at