Bollywood actor Salman Khan was yesterday (March 24th) asked by a sessions court to appear before it on March 27 for recording his statement on prosecution evidence in the 2002 hit-and-run case, in which he is charged with killing one and injuring four others by ramming his car into a shop. (Read: Salman Khan did […]
Hit-n-run case: Court to record Salman Khan’s statement on March 27 Read More »
[Civil Appeal No.1431 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No. 30485 of 2013] Bulwark Warehousing Company and others Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others [Civil Appeal No.1433 of 2015 arising out of SLP(C) No. 33545 of 2013] Wadi Bunder Cotton Press Co. Vs. Brihan Mumbai Mahanagar Palika and others [Civil Appeal No.1436
[Civil Appeal Nos. 1440-1441 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.35365-35366 of 2012] ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals have been preferred against final judgment and order dated 10th February, 2012 in RFA(OS) No.35 of 2010 and dated 1st June, 2012 in R.P. No.369 of 2012 in RFA (OS) No.35
[Criminal Appeal No. 220 of 2015 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.7506 of 2014] ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred against final judgment and order dated 11th August, 2014 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Misc. Criminal Case No.10371 of 2014 whereby a
Recent SC Judgement – Dr. Vinod Bhandari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh – 04.02.15 Read More »
[Writ Petition (Criminal) No.61 of 2012] ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare Rule 159 of the High Court of Jharkhand Rules, 2001 as violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution and provisions of Sections 397 and 401
In a landmark judgment on the Right to Freedom of Speech on the Internet, the Supreme Court on Tuesday quashed Section 66A of the Information Technology Act that empowers the police to make arrests over contentious social media posts. It ruled that the law violate people’s fundamental right to speech and expression. Here are 5
Five key observations of the Supreme Court judgment on Section 66A of IT Act Read More »
[Criminal Appeal No.2323 of 2014] O R D E R ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against judgment and order dated 25th March, 2011 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in Criminal Appeal No.1298 of 2005. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on 19th September, 2004
Recent SC Judgement – Bhavanbhai Bhayabhai Panella Vs. State of Gujarat – 04.02.15 Read More »
[Criminal Appeal No. 222 of 2015 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.881 of 2014] T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 29th August, 2013 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi whereby the High Court has dismissed T.P. (Crl.) No.31 of 2013
Recent SC Judgement – Kanaklata Vs. State of (NCT) of Delhi – 04.02.15 Read More »
[Writ Petition (C) No.61 of 2011] Heard the learned counsel. The only prayer made in this petition is that initiation of proceedings under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI Act’), more particularly by a notice dated 2nd June, 2004, issued under Section 13(2) of the Act
Recent SC Judgement – Mr. Sarvesh Bansal Vs. Union of India – 03.02.15 Read More »
[Civil Appeal No.1416 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No. 12513 of 2013] V.GOPALA GOWDA, J. Leave granted. The appellant in this appeal has challenged the judgment and order dated 29.08.2012 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, passed in Writ Petition No. 3652 of 2012, whereby the High Court allowed the writ
Recent SC Judgement – Indian Bank Vs. Manilal Govindji Khona – 03.02.15 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.
