[Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 2015 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.7067 of 2014] C. NAGAPPAN, J. Leave granted. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Final Order dated 02.09.2013 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Miscellaneous Case No.5096/2006, whereby the High Court dismissed the petition seeking to quash the complaint […]
[Criminal Appeal Nos.493-495 of 2009] [Criminal Appeal Nos.1238 of 2009; 1239 of 2009; 1241 of 2009; 1194 of 2011; and 1892 of 2011] SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, J. All these eight appeals arise out of one criminal case bearing FIR No.188/01 dated 10.09.2001 of P.S. Sunail, Distt. Jhalwada (Rajasthan) lodged by informant Amar Singh (P.W.15) against
Recent SC Judgement – Inder Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan –06.01.15 Read More »
[Civil Appeal No. 1240 of 2005] Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. On 3rd November, 1980 Ram Singh (nephew of Bhagwana) filed Suit No. 630 of 1980 in the Court of the Senior Sub-Judge, Sonepat (Haryana). He stated in the plaint that 52 kanals of land in the revenue estate of Nizampur Majra in district Sonepat
Recent SC Judgement – Phool Patti Vs. Ram Singh (D) through LRS. –06.01.15 Read More »
[Civil Appeal No. 28 of 2015 arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.32616 of 2013] M.Y.EQBAL J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal by special leave is directed against judgment and order dated 23.5.2013 of the High Court of Allahabad at Lucknow Bench whereby learned Single Judge classifying the respondent as ‘workman’ allowed the
CAIRO: Outlawed Muslim Brotherhood’s supreme leader and 83 other Islamists have been transferred to military court to face trial on charges of attacking public and governmental buildings and inciting violence in Egypt. The defendants have been charged with attacking a governmental building in the Upper Egyptian city of Qena, inciting violence and damaging public buildings,
Egypt military court to try 84 Brotherhood leaders Read More »
The Supreme Court on Monday expressed unhappiness over N Srinivasan’s participation in a BCCI meeting on February 8 saying he should not have done this. “Srinivasan should not have done this, we have certainly found that there is a conflict of interest, said the apex court in a response to a petition seeking contempt proceedings
Supreme Court slams N Srinivasan for participating in BCCI meeting Read More »
Stepping into the Supreme Court premises for the first time as a student of law was an exhilarating experience. It literally gave goose-bumps. We had read landmark judgments given by this great institution which kept ‘rule of law’ and ‘equality’ secure in the stormiest periods. Covering the Supreme Court on a day-to-day basis for the
Seeking recusal of judges becoming a trend in high profile cases Read More »
[Civil Appeal No.5989 of 2007] M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against judgment and order dated 16.8.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging orders issued by the respondents. 2. The factual matrix
Recent SC Judgement – Nargis Jal Haradhvala Vs. State of Maharashtra –06.01.15 Read More »
[Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.22775 of 2012] SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-M/s. Swati Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. against the judgment dated 18th April, 2012 passed by the Division Bench of High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in
[Civil Appeal No.5983 of 2007] Dipak Misra, J. 1. In this appeal, by special leave, the justifiability and soundness of the judgment and order dated 18.5.2006 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in W.P.(Service) No. 6106 of 2005 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court has overturned the order passed by
Recent SC Judgement – Union of India Vs. S.N. Maity –06.01.15 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.
