NEW DELHI: Supreme Court refused to entertain petition by former telecom minister Dayanidhi Maran, who wanted the Aircel-Maxis case against him to be tried by a normal court and not by 2G scam special court. Maran pleaded that the SC had barred only 2G scam accused from going to the Delhi high court. Maran said […]
Supreme Court refuses Maran’s petition for Aircel-Maxis case Read More »
A military judge is trying to decide whether the attempt to prosecute five prisoners at Guantanamo Bay for the Sept 11 attacks can resume after stalling for nearly a year because of the revelation of an apparent FBI investigation into members of one of the defense teams. The five defendants are expected back in court
Way forward sought for stalled Sept 11 case at Guantanamo Read More »
[Criminal Appeal No.1451 of 2009] C. NAGAPPAN, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.8.2008 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No.1537 of 1998. The appellant herein is accused no.1 and he along with five other accused were tried in Sessions case no.193/1995 on
Recent SC Judgement – Uma Shankar Gautam Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh –09.12.14 Read More »
[Criminal Appeal No.820 of 2010] C. NAGAPPAN, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 18.8.1991 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.1418 of 2001. Appellants 1 to 4 stood charged for the offence under Section 302/34 in Sessions Trial No.195 of 1991 on the file of Additional
Recent SC Judgement – Kunwarpal @ Surajpal Vs. State of Uttarakhand –09.12.14 Read More »
[Criminal Appeal No. 2545 of 2014 arising out of SLP (Criminal) No.4199 of 2013] M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. By way of present appeal by special leave, Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order-F) Department, Chennai has assailed the Order dated 26.4.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the
[Civil Appeal No. 10862 of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) No.26977 of 2010] Union of India & Ors. Vs. S.D. Bhangale & Ors. Etc. Etc. [Civil Appeal Nos. 10863-10864 Of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) Nos.28595-96 of 2010) Union of India & Ors. Vs. V. Ambi & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 10865 of
Governor Ram Naik Friday cleared UP Control of Goonda (Amendment) Ordinance, 2015 bringing offences like cow slaughter, human trafficking, animal trafficking, money laundering, molestation, bonded labour, child labour and even manufacturing and trading of illegal arms under the provisions of the Goonda Act. The ordinance, which was recently cleared by the state Cabinet, was sent
Ordinance puts cow slaughter now under Goonda Act Read More »
[Civil Appeal No.10856 of 2014 arising out of SLP (C) No.31531 of 2009] SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-Durgapur Casual Workers Union and others (hereinafter referred to as, ‘the workmen’ for short) against the judgment and order dated 25th February, 2009 passed by the Division
[Criminal Appeal No. 892 of 2009] PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 8.1.2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2007 whereby said Court has dismissed the appeal of accused-appellant Selvaraj @ Chinnapaiyan, who was convicted by the trial court
[Criminal Appeal No. 2546 of 2014 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 6033 of 2008] Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. Leave granted. This appeal is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Misc. No. 35963-M of 2001, whereby the High Court dismissed the application filed by
Recent SC Judgement – K.K. Singhal Vs. Steel Strips Ltd. – 09.12.14 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.
