[Civil Appeal No.1662 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.5097 of 2012] ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred against final judgment and order dated 1st March, 2011 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in W.A. No.36738 of 2008. 3. The question raised for consideration relates […]
Recent SC Judgement – Khursheed Ahmad Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh – 09.02.15 Read More »
MUMBAI: Acid attack victim Aarti Thakur may have to wait a little longer for her next round of surgery. Aarti’s advocate Gayatri Singh on Wednesday told the high court that she has learnt that the plastic surgeon, who was supposed to operate on Aarti, will not be available in the city for over a month.
Surgery of 2012 acid attack victim deferred, lawyer tells high court Read More »
The Ludhiana police landed in a tricky and awkward situation on Wednesday after two of its personnel were rushed to Mumbai to serve a notice to filmmaker Ram Gopal Varma under Section 66A of IT Act which was struck down by Supreme Court of India on Tuesday. More so, the policemen including an assistant sub-inspector
Ludhiana police in a spot as Ram Gopal Varma faces FIR under Section 66A Read More »
[Civil Appeal No. 1651 of 2015 @ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 27080 of 2013] PER ANIL R. DAVE, J. Leave granted. Looking at the peculiar facts of the case, in the interests of justice, we direct that upon payment of Rs. 25,000/- by way of costs to the sole respondent within two months from
[Civil Appeal No.8224 of 2012] SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the impugned judgment dated 1st March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No.2547 of 2010. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upheld
Recent SC Judgement – Professor Ramesh Chandra Vs. University of Delhi – 06.02.15 Read More »
[Criminal Appeal No.593 of 2012] Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This criminal appeal is filed by the accused against the judgment and final order dated 24.05.2011 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Appeal No.1792 of 2004. 2. By impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant (accused) and
[Civil Appeal No.3962 of 2007] [Civil Appeal No.3963 of 2007] R.F. NARIMAN, J. 1. These petitions raise questions as to the constitutional validity of the Kerala Cashew Factories (Acquisition) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), which has been placed in the 9th Schedule to the Constitution of India, being entry 148 thereof.
Recent SC Judgement –S.T. Sadiq Vs. State of Kerala – 04.02.15 Read More »
NEW DELHI: Expressing his disappointment over the CBI’s move to file a closure report giving clean chit to Congress leader Jagdish Tytler in the 1984 riots case, senior advocate HS Phoolka on Wednesday said that he would file a protest petition regarding the same. Phoolka said it is very unfortunate that the CBI quietly filed
Clean chit to Tytler in 1984 riots case: ‘Upset’ Phoolka to file protest petition Read More »
Former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh moved the Supreme Court on Wednesday, seeking to get summon against him quashed in a coal block allocation scam case. Opinion: The Hindalco contradiction Singh, who was also in charge of the coal ministry at the relevant time, has sought an immediate stay on the summing order, asking him to
Manmohan Singh moves SC against summon in coal scam case Read More »
JAMMU: Jammu and Kashmir government today said that Disturbed Areas Act (DAA) 1997 has lapsed and is not in force in the state. Rejecting a resolution regarding revocation of DAA brought by National Conference member Bashir Ahmed Veeri in the Legislative Council today, its chairman Amrit Malhotra said that the government has informed that Jammu
Disturbed Areas Act 1997 not in force in J&K: state govt 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.
