Recent Judgement

[Criminal Appeal No. 357 of 2005] Madan B. Lokur, J. 1. The question for consideration is whether the facts and circumstances of the case require the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and if so, whether the respondent/accused is guilty of the murder of his wife Dhapu Kunwar. In our opinion, both […]

[Civil Appeal No. 5846 of 2014 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.8394 of 2013] C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.9.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C no.45914 of 2012. 3. The respondent herein was employed as

[Criminal Appeal No. 5847 of 2014 arising out of SLP (CRL.) No.27614 of 2011] C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2009 passed by the Guwahati High Court, Agartala Bench, in MFC (W.C.) 03 of 2009 dismissing the appeal of the appellants herein against the

[Civil Appeal No(S). 5848-49 of 2014 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.29550-29551 of 2010] C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals are preferred by the appellant who was working as Assistant Engineer with respondent No.2. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated under Rule 85 of the Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Employees Service Regulations,

[Criminal Appeal No. 1247 of 2014 arising out of Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No.5826 of 2011] C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is preferred against the impugned order dated 18.4.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 830 of 2009 whereby the High Court allowed the

[Civil Appeal No. 5605 of 2010] O R D E R 1 This Appeal assails the Order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi dated March 30, 2006 whereby WP(C) No.3923 of 2005 came to be dismissed. The prayer in the Writ Petition, inter alia, was for the

[Criminal Appeal No.1881 of 2011] [Criminal Appeal No. 1884 of 2011] C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Both the appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No.927 of 2001. 2. The appellants 1 to 4 in Criminal Appeal No. 1884 of 2011,

[Criminal Appeal No.1022 of 2009] [Criminal Appeal No.1023 of 2009] C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. Both the appeals have been preferred against the judgment and final order dated 23.1.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.932 of 2004. The appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1022 of 2009 Smt. Ashi Devi,

[I.A. Nos. 101-103 in Contempt Petitions (C) No.412413 of 2012] [Civil Appeals No. 9813 and 9833 of 2011] [Contempt Petition (C) No.260 of 2013] [Civil Appeal No.8643 of 2012] T.S. Thakur, J. 1. Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited (SIRECL) and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Limited (SHICL) (hereinafter referred to as ‘Saharas’ for short) invited

[Criminal Appeal Nos.1095-1097 of 2011] C. NAGAPPAN, J. 1. These three appeals are preferred against the common judgment dated 16.7.2009 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1288 of 2006, 1362 of 2006 and 1408 of 2006. 2. The appellants herein are five in number and were