[Criminal Appeal No.605 of 2012] [Criminal Appeal No. 1924 of 2014] [Criminal Appeal No. 1925 of 2014] JUDGMENT R.M. LODHA, CJI. 1. In the order of 03.04.2012, a two-Judge Bench of this Court granted leave in SLP (Crl.) No.5761 of 2010. The Court formulated the following two questions for consideration: (i) Can cognizance of an […]
Recent SC Judgement –Yogendra Pratap Singh Vs. Savitri Pandey – 19.09.14 Read More »
Sending a strong signal against incidents of harassment of women particularly in court premises, the Supreme Court on Friday threw out an appeal by a lawyer against a week-long jail term in a case of misdemeanour against a woman colleague in Delhi High Court in 2012. A bench of Justices T S Thakur and Adarsh
[Criminal Appeal No. 2048 of 2014 arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 6461 of 2011] Dipak Misra, J. 1. The centripodal issue that strikingly emerges, commanding the judicial conscience to ponder and cogitate with reasonable yard-stick of precision, for consideration how far a superior court should proceed to analyse the factual score in exercise of
[Civil Appeal No.2143 of 2007] V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the two separate impugned orders dated 14.2.2005 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6916 of 2004 by both the members of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh and against the order dated 26.04.2006
Recent SC Judgement –Institute of Law Vs. Neeraj Sharma – 19.09.14 Read More »
[Criminal Appeal No. 632 of 2011] [Criminal Appeal No. 633 of 2011] A.K. SIKRI, J. These two appeals arise out of concurrent order of conviction passed by the courts below convicting these two appellants, viz. Vijay Thakur and Surjeet Khachi, along with third accused, namely, Rajinder Thakur under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
Recent SC Judgement –Vijay Thakur Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh – 19.09.14 Read More »
[Writ Petition (Civil) No. 469 of 2014] [W.P.(C) No. 700/2014] [W.P.(C) No. 705/2014] [W.P.(C) No. 706/2014] [W.P.(C) No. 707/2014] [SLP(C) No. 21765/2014] [SLP(C) No. 22755/2014] [SLP(C) No. 22756/2014] [SLP(C) No. 22757/2014] [SLP(C) No. 22758-22759/2014] [SLP(C) No. 22974/2014] [W.P.(C) No. 784/2014] [SLP(C) No. 23512/2014] [SLP(C) No. 23777/2014] [W.P.(C) No. 757/2014] [W.P.(C) No. 799/2014] [SLP(C) No. 22785/2014]
The Delhi High Court in an interim order has restrained Xiaomi as well as online e-commerce site Flipkart from selling in India handsets of the Chinese mobile maker that run on the technology patented by Ericsson. The court has also restrained Xiaomi or its agents from making, assembling, importing or offering for sale its devices
Delhi High Court stops sale of Xiaomi phones Read More »
NEW DELHI: Taking forward the money laundering probe in the Aircel-Maxis deal, the Enforcement Directorate has questioned the Maran brothers — Dayanidhi and Kalanithi — in connection with its criminal case against them. Sources said the investigators, early this week, recorded the statements of Dayanidhi, the former telecom minister, and his businessman brother Kalanithi here
ED questions Maran brothers in Aircel-Maxis laundering case Read More »
LONDON: The abortion debate has returned to haunt Northern Ireland with the Human Rights Commission of the country taking the government to court on Wednesday challenging the near-blanket ban on the procedure. The commission announced it would take the government in Belfast to the high court over its refusal to reform the abortion law. The
MUMBAI: Maharashtra government is expected to tell the Bombay High Court on Thursday of its stand on the use of the word ‘Sindhu’ instead of ‘Sindh’ in the national anthem in text-books. On December 4, a division bench of Justice Anoop Mohta and Justice Nitin Jamdar asked the state to reply whether it is following
Maharashtra to tell HC if it will retain ‘Sindhu’ in textbooks’ national anthem 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.
