admin

[Criminal Appeal Nos. 2120-2121 of 2024] Veerupakshagouda Vs. State of Karnataka [Criminal Appeal Nos. 2542-2543 of 2024] Vipul M. Pancholi, J. 1. The appellants have preferred the present appeals challenging the common judgment and order dated 28.11.2023 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, whereby the High Court has quashed and set aside […]

[Criminal Appeal No. 1425 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 13324 of 2024] J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, J.J.:- 1. By our judgment and order dated 24.03.2025, we had clarified the law as regards the mandatory registration of an F.I.R. in the event of disclosure of a cognizable offence and simultaneously, reminded the administration

[Criminal Appeal No. 1425 of 2025 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No. 13324 of 2024] J.B. Pardiwala & R. Mahadevan, J.J.:- 1. By our judgment and order dated 24.03.2025, we had clarified the law as regards the mandatory registration of an F.I.R. in the event of disclosure of a cognizable offence and simultaneously, reminded the administration

[Criminal Appeal No. 430 of 2018] R. Mahadevan, J. 1. The instant Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the State of Himachal Pradesh assailing the Final Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2014 passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla1 in Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 2010, whereby the High Court allowed the appeal preferred

[Civil Appeal No. 6075 of 2016] Aravind Kumar, J. 1. The Appellants before this Court are the unsuccessful Plaintiffs in a suit1 for Mandatory Injunction, and the Respondent is the Defendant in the suit. (The parties hereinafter are referred to by their respective ranks in the suit). The Trial Court2 decreed the Suit filed by the

[Civil Appeal No._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 24729/2019] Aravind Kumar. J, 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 28 June 2019 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 2233 of 2016. By the impugned judgment, the High Court declined to grant

[Civil Appeal No._________ 36 of 2026 @ SLP (Civil) No. 5834 of 2025] K.V. Viswanathan, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the order dated 02.05.2024 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Commercial Arbitration Application No.9 of 2024. By the said order, the

[Criminal Appeal No. 591 of 2020] Manoj Misra, J. 1. This appeal arises from judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad1 dated 05.07.2019 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 8133 of 2007. Facts 2. Three persons, namely, Anjani Singh (Appellant No. 1), Ravindra Singh (Appellant No. 2) and Rishabh Dev Singh were tried in

[Civil Appeal Nos._________ of 2026 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 6024-6025 of 2022] Pankaj Mithal, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. We have heard Shri Chander Uday Singh, senior counsel assisted by Shri Amarjit Singh Bedi, Advocate-on-Record for the appellant-NAK Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd.1 and Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, learned counsel assisted by Shri Surjendu Sankar Das, Advocate-on-Record

[Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 703-704 of 2025] [Civil Appeal Nos. 2809-2810 of 2024] Vikram Nath, J. 1. Heard Shri Vipin Sanghi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The present contempt petitions have been instituted by the appellant in the civil appeals already disposed of, alleging, inter alia,