[Criminal Appeal No. 142 of 2015 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 1156/2013] R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.10.2012 passed by Allahabad High Court in Criminal Appeal No.5043 of 2011 in which the High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read […]
Recent SC Judgement – Tomaso Bruno Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh –20.01.15 Read More »
[Civil Appeal Nos. 712-713 of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.3106-3107 of 2012] S.C. Awasthi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal Nos. 714-715 of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.20425-20426 of 2011] P.N. Mishra Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 716 of 2014 arising out of
Recent SC Judgement – T.M. Sampath Vs. Secretary, Ministry of Water Resources –20.01.15 Read More »
[Civil Appeal No. 176 of 2015] R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 27.9.2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.S.A. No.297/2007, wherein the High Court allowed the appeal in part, modifying the concurrent judgment and decree passed by the courts below and holding that the appellants- plaintiffs
Recent SC Judgement – Laxmidevamma Vs. Ranganath –20.01.15 Read More »
MUMBAI: In a setback to Congress vice president Rahul Gandhi, the Bombay high court on Tuesday dismissed his petition for quashing a defamation case against him for allegedly blaming RSS for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Justice M L Tahaliyani rejected Rahul’s petition seeking to quash the complaint filed by RSS activist Rajesh Kunte before
Setback to Rahul Gandhi, HC dismisses plea to quash defamation case Read More »
Prime Minister Narendra Modi‘s contention during polls that each citizen could get Rs 15 lakh if all black money was unearthed was based on “illustrative” figures cited in various estimates, government said today, responding to questions that have been raised over the issue. Finance Minister Arun Jaitley, while replying to questions in Rajya Sabha on
Rs 15 lakh claim for each citizen was based on ‘illustrative’ figures: Arun Jaitley Read More »
NEW DELHI: The Supreme court on Tuesday has stayed Delhi HC order allowing the accused in the Uber cab rape case to recall and re-examine 13 witnesses. The court has agreed to hear plea of the rape victim who had challenged Delhi high court’s order. SC issued notice to the accused and Delhi police on
Uber rape: SC stays HC order, issues notice to Delhi police and accused Read More »
NEW DELHI: At a time when the Supreme Court is hearing a petition on Manipur being cut off from the rest of the country due to frequent blockades of the national highway, the United Naga Council on Monday audaciously told the court that there could be no peace in Manipur without the conglomerate’s “consent and
We hold key to Manipur peace, Naga body tells SC Read More »
[Criminal Appeal No. 141 of 2015 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No.6449 of 2014] R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by Special Leave arises out of the judgment dated 24.04.2014 passed by the Karnataka High Court in Criminal Petition No.252 of 2014, in and by which, the High Court, while dismissing the
Recent SC Judgement – Manik Taneja Vs. State of Karnataka –20.01.15 Read More »
[Arbitration Case (Civil) No.35 of 2014] Judgment 1. A works contract No.3AAA dated 20th December, 2000 was executed by and between the petitioner and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (respondent No.1 herein) for execution of city tunnel rehabilitation works for the purposes of transporting the city’s sewage. Disputes and differences having arisen between the
[Criminal Appeal No.552 of 2012] Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. This appeal is filed by accused No.1 against the final judgment and order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Mumbai in Criminal Appeal No. 145 of 1991 which arose from the judgment and order dated 26.02.1991 passed by the 5th Additional
Recent SC Judgement – Tarabai Vs. State of Maharashtra –20.01.15 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.
