NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected plea of Jat students seeking reservation in admission to PG medical and dental courses. Rejecting the plea, the Supreme Court said that at the time of All India counselling these Jat students were treated as OBCs. READ ALSO: SC quashes Centre’s decision to include Jats in OBC […]
SC rejects Jat reservation in PG medical and dental courses Read More »
[Civil Appeal No. 1852 of 2015 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.5811 of 2014] T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 11/10/2013 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, whereby M.B. No. 9620 of 2013 filed by the respondents has been allowed and
[Criminal Appeal No.290 of 2015 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.5609 of 2013] ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh against judgment and order dated 6th November, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Criminal Revision No.72 of
Recent SC Judgement – State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Mehtaab – 13.02.15 Read More »
[Civil Appeal No.2904 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No.2905 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No.3409 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No.5144 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No.2279 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No.1498 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No.5090 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No.5414 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No.5163 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No.5840 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No.7368 of 2011]
Recent SC Judgement – Union of India Vs. Rajbir Singh – 13.02.15 Read More »
[Civil Appeal No.5254 of 2006] RANJAN GOGOI, J. 1. This appeal seeks to challenge two separate though largely similar orders both dated 26th June, 2003 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Civil Revision Petition Nos.1398 and 1399 of 2003. By the aforesaid orders, the High Court, in reversal of the
Pakistan on Monday said India should “not jump the gun” as the case related to Mumbai terror attack mastermind Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi is “sub-judice”. India had conveyed its outrage after a court in Islamabad had earlier this month ordered release of Lashkar terrorist Lakhvi, who is responsible for 26/11 terror attacks in Mumbai, though he
Zakiur Rehman Lakhvi case ‘sub-judice’, no need to jump the gun: Pak envoy Read More »
[Criminal Appeal Nos.288-289 of 2015 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) Nos.6240-6241 of 2014] SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. On behalf of both the appellants, the initial submission is to the effect that their conviction for offences under Sections 324, 452 and 323, IPC is not justified by the prosecution evidence available on
Recent SC Judgement – Binoy Vs. State of Kerala – 13.02.15 Read More »
[Arbitration Case (Civil) No.38 of 2014] 1. Both these applications under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Arbitration Act”) have been filed seeking appointment of a sole arbitrator to go into the disputes and differences that the petitioner claims to have arisen out of two separate contract
[Civil Appeal No.5577 of 2004] SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 30th April, 2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No.1485 of 1984. By the impugned judgment, the High Court allowed the writ
[Civil Appeal No. 1822 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.29805 of 2014] M. Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.8.2014 of the High Court of Delhi allowing the revision petition preferred by the respondent/plaintiff against the order of the
Recent SC Judgement – Raveesh Chand Jain Vs. Raj Rani Jain – 12.02.15 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.
