LONDON: Sweden’s highest court on Monday rejected whistleblower Julian Assange’s appeal against his arrest warrant. A 4-1 decision saw the jury decide in favour of not lifting the warrant against the WikiLeaks founder, who is charged with allegations of rape and sexual assault. Unable to draw him out of the Ecuadorian embassy in London for […]
Swedish top court upholds Assange’s detention order Read More »
NEW DELHI: In a major embarassment to the NDA government, the Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected the Centre’s plea for referring the constitutional validity issue to a 11-judge bench. A five-judge bench took a mid-way 37 minute break and returned to announce that it would not refer NJAC matter to 11-judge bench as was vehemently
SC rejects Centre’s plea for 11-judge bench NJAC’s hearing Read More »
[Civil Appeal No. 2381 of 2007] V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and final order dated 18.07.2006, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2588 of 1998, whereby the High Court has upheld and modified the Award passed by the Industrial
Recent SC Judgement – State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Charan Singh – 26.03.15 Read More »
[Civil Appeal Nos. 2485-2490 of 2010] Union of India & Others Vs. A. Karunanithi [Civil Appeal No. 2577 of 2010] Union of India & Others Vs. Awadhesh Kumar & Others [Civil Appeal Nos. 2491-2503 of 2010] Union of India & Others Vs. Issac Varghese & Others [Civil Appeal No. 10386 of 2013] Jagdish Singh Khehar,
Recent SC Judgement – Dhole Govind Sahebrao Vs. Union of India – 26.03.15 Read More »
[Civil Appeal No. 3194 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.20379 of 2006] [Transferred Case (C) No.41 of 2010] [Transferred Case (C) No.42 of 2010] [Transferred Case (C) No.43 of 2010] [Transferred Case (C) No.44 of 2010] Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 1. Through this common order we propose to dispose of the Special Leave
[Civil Appeal No. 5862 of 2007] Vasam Surender S/o. Veeraswamy & Others Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh & Others [Civil Appeal Nos. 6002-6005 of 2007] Jagdish Singh Khehar, J. 1. It is not a matter of dispute, that the conditions of service including the manner and method of determining seniority in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors
Recent SC Judgement – A. Raghu S/o. Rajaiah Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh – 26.03.15 Read More »
Supreme Court has reportdedly stayed Enforcement Directorate’s proceedings against IT major Tech Mahindra in money laundering case. On May 7, Tech Mahindra sought urgent intervention by the Supreme Court to quash money laundering charges pursued by the Enforcement Directorate related to Satyam Computer Services, the scam-tainted company that was acquired and later merged with it
Money laundering case: Tech Mahindra gets relief from SC Read More »
BENGALURU: AIADMK supremo and former Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa scored a sensational legal victory on Monday, as the Karnataka high court acquitted her of all corruption charges in the 19 year old Rs 66.65-crore disproportionate assets case that had been hanging like an albatross around her neck for nearly two decades. Justice C
Karnataka HC acquits Jayalalithaa in disproportionate assets case Read More »
[Criminal Appeal Nos. 516-518 of 2010] S. A. BOBDE, J. 1. These Criminal Appeals are preferred by the complainant against the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad by which the High Court has in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short Cr.P.C.)
[Civil Appeal No. 9043 of 2003] R. F. Nariman, J. An interesting question is raised in this appeal which arises out of two judgments of this Court, namely, ‘Buxa Dooars Tea Company Ltd. and others v. State of West Bengal and others’ [(1989) 3 SCC 211] and ‘Goodricke Group Ltd. and others v. State of
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.
