[Civil Appeal No. 9755 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No. 9756 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No. 9758 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No. 9759 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No. 9760 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No. 9761 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No. 9762 of 2011] Heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties. It is not in […]
Recent SC Judgement – Kulbir Singh Vs. State of Haryana –19.01.15 Read More »
Five men were behind bars Sunday either charged or suspected in the killing of Kremlin critic Boris Nemtsov, but details remained unclear in the case that has shaken Russia’s marginalized and struggling opposition movement. The five appeared in a Moscow court, where two of them were charged in connection with the shooting of Nemtsov as
Russian court charges 2, detains 3 others in Nemtsov killing Read More »
HYDERABAD: A special court here is slated to pronounce the much-awaited judgment in the multi-crore accounting fraud in the erstwhile Satyam Computer Services Limited (SCSL) on April 9. During the last hearing on December 23, 2014, special judge BVLN Chakravarthi had said that he would pronounce the verdict on April 9, citing voluminous documents of
Much-awaited verdict in Satyam fraud case on April 9 Read More »
KOCHI: A decision taken by the central government after the Khobragade row for not allowing Indians who accept Trafficking (T) visas issued by the United States to fly there is against fundamental rights, says the Kerala High Court. Issued to victims of human trafficking, a T visa allows the holder to stay in the US
‘Khobragade ban’ against fundamental rights, says Kerala HC Read More »
[Civil Appeal No. 8577 of 2014] KURIAN, J.: Appellant is aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the High Court declining to condone the delay of 1373 days in filing the appeal against the judgment dated 14.11.2000 in A.S. No. 108 of 1999 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Bhavani, Erode District, Tamil Nadu.
[Criminal Appeal No. 99 of 2015 arising out of SLP (CRL) No.1491 of 2012] ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23rd November, 2011 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan at Jaipur in Criminal Revision No.6 of 2009 by the complainant against
Recent SC Judgement – Manohar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan –16.01.15 Read More »
[Civil Appeal No.518 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.36433 of 2013] ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and Order dated 15th June, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madras in Writ Appeal No.1099 of 2012. 3. The respondent was employed as a
[Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 2015 arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 6927/2013] KURIAN, J.: Leave granted. Appellant is accused no.1 in C.R. No. 3446 of 2010 of Bund Garden Police Station in the State of Maharashtra. The case is registered by the Anti – Corruption Bureau under Sections 7, 12, 13(1)(d) read with Section
Recent SC Judgement – Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan Vs. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke –16.01.15 Read More »
The Delhi High Court on Thursday upheld the conviction of former Haryana chief minister O P Chautala, his son Ajay Chautala and 53 others in the 1999 JBT teacher recruitment scam. READ: Chautala Chronology The court of Justice Siddharth Mridul has upheld the 10-year jail sentence given by the trial court in 2013 to O
JBT scam: Delhi High Court upholds conviction of O P Chautala, son and 53 others Read More »
The Special Investigation Team (SIT) monitoring the MPPEB scam has itself landed in trouble with the high court asking it to explain the circumstances in which it accepted a request to visit Delhi to examine the evidence submitted by AICC general secretary Digvijaya Singh. The court order has come in response to an objection raised
MPPEB scam: Court raps SIT for accepting Digvijaya Singh’s request to visit Delhi 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.
