ID stringlengths 4 7 | para_id int64 0 26 | newJudgement stringlengths 0 34.1k |
|---|---|---|
id_47 | 8 | We, however, make it clear that we are not here to give a clean chit to any, or all of the Fair Price Shop owners with regard to their business dealings, and our aforesaid observations have been made in the context of the petitioners' grievance that the generalized allegations made by the Government of National Capital... |
id_47 | 9 | In Targeted Public Distribution Scheme (TPDS), the Central Government plays a major role in implementation including procurement, storage, distribution and bulk allocation of foodgrains. The entire TPDS is being implemented under the National Food Security Act, 2013. The Law Department in its note (21/N) has pointed ou... |
id_47 | 10 | People queue up to buy medicines from a medical store; to buy milk at the milk booth; bus, train and airline tickets at bus stations, railway stations and airports; to buy cinema tickets at cinema houses; to buy tickets for sporting and other entertainment events at the venues, and so on., If the submission of Mr Rahma... |
id_471 | 0 | W.P. No. 18822 of 2022 and W.M.P. Nos. 18171 & 18172 of 2022 S. Karthi, Petitioner. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Dr. Ambedkar Law University, Raja Annamalaipuram, Chennai 600028. The Bar Council of India, represented by its Secretary, No.21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area, New Delhi 110002. The Bar Council of Tamil Nadu... |
id_473 | 0 | Office of the Registrar General, Camp Office at Srinagar, No: 184 of 2021/RG dated 30.03.2021. In the interest of administration, the following transfers and postings of the Judicial Officers are hereby ordered. Shri Mohan Lal Manhas, Principal District and Sessions Judge, Udhampur is transferred and posted as Principa... |
id_474 | 0 | WP(MD)No.4505 of 2016 and WMP(MD)No.4085 of 2016 Vasuki : Petitioner. The respondents are: 1. The Secretary to Government, Health Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai 600009. 2. The Joint Director of Health Services, DMS Office Campus, Teynampettai, Chennai 600018. 3. The Joint Director of Med... |
id_475 | 0 | The Roster of Sitting of the Hon'ble Judges of this Court effective from 28.11.2022 is as under:, Division Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma (Chief Justice) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Subramonium Prasad. 1) All Public Interest Litigation matters. 2) Letters Patent Appeals (other than service matters) for th... |
id_477 | 0 | Petitioner: Shrimati Shikha (Corpus) and Another. Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh and three others. Counsel for petitioner: Manoj Kumar Tiwari. Counsel for respondent: Advocate G. A., Honourable Pankaj Naqvi, Judge; Honourable Vivek Agarwal, Judge., Heard Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners,... |
id_478 | 0 | Through: Mr. Rahul Beruar and Ms. Jyotsana Sinha, Advocates versus Through: Mr. Kunal Rakwar, Advocate for Defendant; Ms. Geetanjali Visvanathan, Advocate for Ms. Mamta Jha; Ms. Shruttima Ehersha and Mr. Roshan Ahuja, Advocates for Defendant No. 4; Mr. Ninad Dogra, Advocate for Defendant No. 11; Mr. Saurabh Kumar and M... |
id_479 | 0 | Crime No. 6 of 2022 was registered by the Crime Branch Police Station, Ernakulam. The petitioners in the bail applications are identified as accused No. 1 to 5. Bail Application No. 248 of 2022 names Gopalakrishnan alias Dileep as Accused No. 1, P. Sivakumar alias Anoop as Accused No. 2, and T. N. Suraj as Accused No. ... |
id_479 | 1 | Conspiracy, it should be borne in mind, is one form of abetment (see Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code) and where an offence is alleged to have been committed by more than two persons, those who actually took part in the commission should be charged with the substantive offence, while those who are alleged to have a... |
id_48 | 0 | Represented by: Mr. Bharat Dubey, Ms. Shubhlaxmi Dubey, Dr. Sonia Dubey and Ms. Tanya Kapoor, Advocates. Versus Represented by: Mr. Prithu Garg, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State with Inspector Ravinder Singh, Police Station Prashant Vihar, Mr. Prashant Diwan, Ms. Kushika Chachhra and Mr. Mayank Verma, Advocat... |
id_48 | 1 | After checking his mobile phone Number 9811092230, the appellant found several messages from mobile Number 9990401054 concerning the kidnapping of his son/deceased and a demand for ransom. The first message read, “humne apke bete Manan ko kidnap kar liya he, ab hum jaisa kehte jayen vaise karte jao, police ko batane ki... |
id_48 | 2 | The defence of the appellant that he did not use the TIA mobile on which SIM No. 9990401054 was also used and that no messages were sent to Sahil or to Rajesh Mahajan falls flat in view of the call records and SMSs noted above. The prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt, from the messages retrieved from the pho... |
id_48 | 3 | When an appellant comes to the Supreme Court carrying a death sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, the Supreme Court may find, as in the present appeal, that the case just falls short of the rarest of the rare category and may feel somewhat reluctant in endorsing the death sentence. But ... |
id_481 | 0 | Sushil Bhatt son of Sukhdev Prasad, address Shop No. 1, Sector 3, Vaishali, District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201002, Applicant versus Moon Beverages Ltd. through its Director, unit B/1, Ecotech III, Udyog Kendra, Greater Noida, District Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh 201306; Moon Beverages Ltd. through its Directo... |
id_481 | 1 | The conditions of consent issued in respect of PP-2 show that it was allowed to discharge domestic effluent up to 25 kilolitres per day (KL/day) from a sewage treatment plant (STP) and industrial effluent up to 350 KL/day from an effluent treatment plant (ETP). In respect of PP-1, the permitted discharge for domestic e... |
id_481 | 2 | Micro and small enterprises drawing nominal ground water less than 10 cubic metres per day have been exempted to promote and motivate small businesses for boosting economic development of the country. Small quantity fixed (i.e., less than 10 kilolitres per day) will not affect overall ground water scenario in a particu... |
id_481 | 3 | In the aforesaid work, ground water is the subject of discussion in chapter 6. It is stated that in Rigveda, Samaveda and Yajurveda, the concept of the hydrological cycle and water use through wells was present, which clearly implies use of ground water in chapter 54 of Vrhat Sanhita. Its author Varahamihira (AD 505‑58... |
id_481 | 4 | By another Notification dated 02.01.2020, published in Uttar Pradesh Gazette (Extraordinary) of the same date, the Governor, in exercise of powers under Section 6(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Ground Water Management and Regulation Act 2019, directed the Uttar Pradesh State Ground Water Management and Regulatory Authority to... |
id_481 | 5 | The jurisdiction of the said Authority was declared to be the whole of India, vide paragraph 3, 94. Supreme Court of India in M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Others (1997) also said that the Authority, i.e., Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) can resort to penal provisions contained in Sections 15 to 21 of the Envir... |
id_481 | 6 | Further, a Committee was constituted at District level for evaluation of industry/infrastructure project proposals seeking ground water clearances, comprising of: District Collector - Chairman; Hydrogeologist, Central Ground Water Board of concerned District - Member; Representative from Industry - Member; Representati... |
id_481 | 7 | The Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) followed a very flexible stand in non‑notified areas, as it had earlier, but with certain conditions. It provided that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) for ground‑water withdrawal would be considered for industries, infrastructure and mining projects, as per the categorisation ... |
id_481 | 8 | Industries which are not able to implement roof top rain water harvesting due to likely threat of pollution or any other valid reason shall be required to pay additional Water Conservation Fee to compensate for the quantum of water that could have been recharged by the unit. No Objection Certificate shall be valid for ... |
id_481 | 9 | Drying of main rivers including the Ganga due to depletion of ground water, water bodies running dry at an alarming rate and extraction of ground water resulting in a fall of the water table beyond the level of replenishment, and various studies and articles published in different reputable magazines were considered by... |
id_481 | 10 | All mining projects drawing ground water in over‑exploited assessment units shall be liable to pay ground water restoration charges as per Table 5.4 B. The documents required to be submitted along with the application for No Objection Certificate in respect of a mining project include, besides the mining plan approved ... |
id_481 | 11 | In this grim situation, continuous laxity on the part of the authorities and the Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) in particular is a matter of serious concern. We must now adopt stringent measures or we will fail in our duty of vigilant protection of the environment. In Mantri Techzone (supra), the Supreme Court o... |
id_481 | 12 | A three‑Judge Bench of the Supreme Court of India, following earlier decision in Mantri Techzone Private Limited vs. Forward Foundation & Others (supra), said in paragraphs 43, 71 and 72 of The Director General (supra) as under: It is noteworthy that this court clearly held that under Section 15(1)(b) and 15(1)(c) of t... |
id_481 | 13 | As per Guidelines 2012 and 2015, issued by the Central Ground Water Authority, under Chapter B, No Objection Certificate to non‑notified areas would have been issued for industries but where the site is in an over‑exploited category, it says that withdrawal of ground water should not exceed 50 % of the recharge quantit... |
id_481 | 14 | Determination/computation/assessment of environmental compensation must not only conform to the requirement of restoration/remediation but should also take care of damage caused to the environment, to the community, if any, and should be preventive, deterrent and to some extent punitive. The idea is not only for restor... |
id_481 | 15 | These recommendations by the Central Pollution Control Board have not been given in the form of a binding statutory provision. Even otherwise, we find that these are only broad suggestions, ignore several relevant aspects which have to be considered while determining environmental compensation in a given case and, ther... |
id_482 | 0 | Quoad hume et quoad hume, these people cannot consummate the marriage quoted by the House of Lords (and Privy Council) in the case of G. vs G., [LR 1924 AC 349], holding that two people should not be tied up together for the rest of their life in a state of misery., The present appeal is preferred by the husband assail... |
id_482 | 1 | As no evidence having been specifically adduced by the wife to prove that the husband is actually impotent, the allegation would remain only an allegation and has the effect of lowering the dignity of the husband, which amounts to cruelty as the Supreme Court of India has held in the case of Shrimati Pramila Bhatia vs.... |
id_484 | 0 | Gaurav Kumar Bansal Writ Petitioner Versus Union of India and others Applicants/Respondents Order on compliance of the judgment and order dated 30.06.2021 Passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 539 of 2021., Pursuant to a detailed judgment and order dated 30.06.2021, Supreme Court of India directed the National Disaster M... |
id_484 | 1 | For Parties: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Senior Government Advocate; Mr. Rajat Nair, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate; Mr. Sughosh Subramanyam, Advocate; Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, Petitioner-in-person; Advocate on Record. Upon hearing the counsel, the Supreme Court of India ... |
id_486 | 0 | Vidya Amin Sayli B. Parkhi, Petitioner, versus State of Maharashtra & Others, Respondents. Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar appearing with Mr. Vikramjit Garewal, Mr. Ajinkya Udhane, Ms. Vinali Bhaidkar in behalf of Mrs. Pushpanjali Arora for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Shastri, Advocate General of the State for respondent No. 1. Mr... |
id_486 | 1 | The intention of the legislature can be derived from the explicit wordings of the provision, when it takes within its ambit issues inter alia in regard to articles, trade, process or operation which in the opinion of the Commissioner are dangerous to life, health or property or are likely to create nuisance either from... |
id_487 | 0 | Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 202/2022, reserved on 29 January 2024 and pronounced on 31 January 2024, filed by Muyeeb Shafi Ganie, petitioner, through Mr. Wajid Haseeb, Advocate, versus Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir and others, respondents, through Mr. Sajad Ashraf, Government Advocate., Through this writ petiti... |
id_489 | 0 | The Petitioner seeks bail in FIR No.60/2020 dated 25.02.2020 registered at PS Dayalpur for offences under Sections 186, 353, 332, 323, 147, 148, 149, 336, 427, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, IPC) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (hereinafter, PDPP Act)., Th... |
id_489 | 1 | It is the Constitutional duty of the Delhi High Court to ensure that there is no arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty in the face of excess of State power. Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and the Delhi High Court must exercise its jurisdiction to uphold the tenets of personal liberty, subject to rightf... |
id_49 | 0 | Appellant: Sanni Singh. Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh and Another. Counsel for Appellant: Manish Gupta, Vinay Kumar. Counsel for Respondent: G.A., Arvind Kumar, Rahul Chaudhary. Honorable Justice Rahul Chaturvedi, J. Heard Sri Manish Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri M.S. Arya, Advocate connected virtu... |
id_491 | 0 | Reportable Civil Appeal No. 8129 of 2022 Madhyamam Broadcasting Limited (Appellant) versus Union of India and others (Respondents). Civil Appeal No. 8130 of 2022 and Civil Appeal No. 8131 of 2022. Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Chief Justice of India. This judgment consists of the following sections: D. Requirement of se... |
id_491 | 1 | On 28 February 2020, a show cause notice was issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting alleging a violation of the Cable Television Network Rules 1994 and Programme Code of the Cable Television Networks (Regulation) Act 1995 while telecasting reports on the violence which took place in North-East Delhi dur... |
id_491 | 2 | The nature of the right infringed, the underlying purpose of the restrictions imposed, the extent and urgency of the evil sought to be remedied thereby, the disproportion of the imposition, the prevailing conditions at the time, all provide the basis for considering the reasonableness of a particular provision. The pro... |
id_491 | 3 | On a perusal of the evidence, it was held that work at the headquarters involved matters of grave national security, and that if the employees and trade unions were consulted before the decision then the security would have been compromised. Lord Scarman observed that the Minister did not consult the employees because ... |
id_491 | 4 | The relevant extract of the response of Ministry of Home Affairs is extracted below: Since the Ministry of Home Affairs has not withdrawn security clearance of existing News and Current Affairs TV channel Media One, it is Ministry of Information and Broadcasting which has to justify its action of issuing show‑cause not... |
id_491 | 5 | A valid claim for privilege made under Section 123 proceeds on the basis of the theory that the production of the document in question would cause injury to public interest, and that, where a conflict arises between public interest and private interest, the latter must yield to the former. No doubt the litigant whose c... |
id_491 | 6 | Identifying the relevancy of the document even before the state is required to discharge the burden of proving public interest introduces a fundamental misconception in the application of public interest immunity, which is an exception to the production of documents. Furthermore, at an elementary level, it would be imp... |
id_491 | 7 | Even if the disclosure would conceivably injure public interest, the Supreme Court of India may still dismiss the claim of public interest immunity if the non‑disclosure would render the issue non‑justiciable, and on the facts of the case it is decided that the injury due to non‑disclosure outweighs the injury due to d... |
id_492 | 0 | Mehul Choksi Applicant versus State of Maharashtra and Enforcement Directorate, Mumbai Respondents. Vijay Aggarwal, Advocate as well as Rahul Agarwal, Yash Agrawal, Abhiraj Rai, Jasmin Purani, Rohit Kaul, Yashwardhan Tiwari for the Applicant. A.R. Patil, Additional Public Prosecutor for Respondent No.1 – State. H.S. Ve... |
id_492 | 1 | Section 4 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Act refers to an application in such form and manner as may be prescribed. This form and manner is prescribed under Rule 3 of the Fugitive Economic Offenders Rules, which are reproduced hereinabove. I find that the application is filed in the format laid down in the said Rul... |
id_493 | 0 | Serial No. 04 Supplementary List Date of Order: 07.02.2022 Sanjeeb Ch. Marak Vs. State of Meghalaya & others. Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Sanjib Banerjee, Chief Justice Honourable Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge. Appearance: For the Petitioner/Appellant: Mr. K. C. Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondent(s): Mr. B. Bhatta... |
id_497 | 0 | 113 CRWP-7874 of 2021 Paramjit Kaur and another v. State of Punjab and others. Present: Mr. Dinesh Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioners. Case heard via video conferencing. By this petition, filed under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ in the nature of... |
id_498 | 0 | Applicant: Nadeem Ansari. Opposite Party: State of Uttar Pradesh. Counsel for the Applicant: Dhirendra Kumar Agrahari, Mohammad Zakir, Sudhir Mehrotra. Counsel for the Opposite Party: Additional Government Advocate Honourable Deepak Verma, J. Heard Sri Nanhey Lal Tripathi, Advocate holding brief for Sri Mohammad Zakir,... |
id_499 | 0 | Date of Decision: 27th November 2020. Through: Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal and Ms. Pratiksha Tripathi, Advocates. Versus: Mr. Rahul Mehra, Standing Counsel for GNCTD with Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, Assistant Public Prosecutor for the State and Mr. Chaitanya Gosain, Advocate. Mr. Rajshekhar Rao, Ms. Aanchal Tikmani and Mr. Shreeyash L... |
id_499 | 1 | In Mehboob Da Wood Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 2 SCC 362, the Supreme Court of India held that a decision is available as a precedent only if it decides a question of law., Jitender's case before the Division Bench raised three questions: (i) whether decisions can be delivered by a successor judge in crimina... |
id_499 | 2 | The Statement of Objects and Reasons underlying the Bill was that Section 545 only provided compensation when the Court imposed a fine and the amount of compensation was limited to the fine whereas under the new provision (Section 357), compensation can be awarded irrespective of whether the offence is punishable with ... |
id_499 | 3 | The Trial Court, after holding the accused guilty of the offence, should direct the aforesaid affidavits to be filed within ten days and the District Legal Services Authority be directed to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the matter and submit a report to the Trial Court within thirty days. The affidavit of the vict... |
id_499 | 4 | This is not a case of transfer simplicitor from one Sessions Judge to another, but a case where arguments stand more or less concluded in the Court of a particular Sessions Judge and the Honourable Chief Justice of the High Court on the administrative side has deemed it expedient, for the ends of justice, to order that... |
id_499 | 5 | It is provided in Section 177 that an offence shall ordinarily be tried by a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction it is committed. In Ram Chandra Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1962) 2 Supreme Court Reports 50, the Supreme Court of India rejected the objection that the Court did not have territorial jurisdic... |
id_499 | 6 | Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is mandatory and it is the duty of all courts to consider it in every criminal case. The court is required to give reasons to show such consideration., In Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh, (1988) 4 Supreme Court Cases 551, the Supreme Court of India issued a mild reprimand while... |
id_499 | 7 | Copy of this judgment along with Annexure A, Annexure B and Annexure B‑1 shall be sent to the Registrar General of the Supreme Court of India, who shall forward the same to the District Judge (Headquarters) for circulation to all concerned courts. The same judgment, affidavit of the accused in the format of Annexure A,... |
id_5 | 0 | Naresh Baliyan Vs M/s Times Now Navbharat 17.08.2023 (at 5.18 pm) fresh suit received by way of assignment. It be checked and registered. Present: Shri Balbir Singh Jakhar, Shri N.C. Sharma, Shri Jai Singh Yadav, Shri Vikram Singh Jakhar, Shri Karamvir Tyagi, Lead counsels for plaintiff. Plaintiff (through video confer... |
id_50 | 0 | Case: WRIT - C No. 29346 of 2023\nPetitioner: Akash Kumar\nRespondent: Union of India and two others\nCounsel for Petitioner: Shashi Kant Shukla, Sadhana Dubey\nCounsel for Respondent: Additional Standing Government Counsel, Narendra Kumar Chatterjee\nHonourable Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.; Honourable Prashant Kumar, J... |
id_502 | 0 | Date of Decision: 18th March 2021. Through: Mr. Gopal Subramanium, Mr. Gourab Banerji, Mr. Rajiv Nayar, Mr. Amit Sibal and Mr. Nakul Dewan, Senior Advocates, along with Mr. Anand S. Pathak, Mr. Amit K. Mishra, Mr. Shashank Gautam, Ms. Sreemoyee Deb, Mr. Mohit Singh, Mr. Harshad Pathak, Mr. Promit Chatterjee, Mr. Shivam... |
id_502 | 1 | The interlinkages of the clauses in the Agreements demonstrate that they constitute a single integrated transaction, with FRL being the beneficiary of the investment made by the Claimant into FCPL and rights created in favour of FCPL for the benefit of the Claimant. FRL's conduct reinforces this position; its disclosur... |
id_502 | 2 | Mr. Salve emphasised that Future Retail Limited (FRL) was not a party to the contractual framework set out in the Future Coupons Private Limited Shareholders Agreement (FCPL SHA) and the Share Subscription Agreement (SSA), that it was entitled to assume that Future Coupons Private Limited (FCPL) had acted properly in s... |
id_502 | 3 | On 19th December 2019, Future Consumer Products Ltd (FCPL) issued a letter to Future Retail Ltd (FRL) confirming that the FRL Shareholders' Agreement (SHA) had come into effect and provided the list of restricted persons which was identical to the list agreed by Biyanis in the FCPL. On 26th December 2019, Amazon invest... |
id_502 | 4 | FRL, in accordance with Rule 28.2 of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre Rules read with Section 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, raised this objection before the Tribunal via its emails dated 16 January 2021 and 28 January 2021. A challenge to the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal can o... |
id_502 | 5 | If a party requires urgent interim or conservatory measures that cannot await the formation of the Arbitration Tribunal, it may make an application to the Secretariat addressed to the Coordinator, with a simultaneous copy to the other parties to the arbitration agreement for such measures. The party making such an appl... |
id_502 | 6 | Canara Bank raised an objection to the joinder of Respondent 2 CANFINA as a party to the arbitration proceedings. As per the principles of contract law, an agreement entered into by one of the companies in a group cannot be binding on the other members of the same group, as each company is a separate legal entity which... |
id_502 | 7 | Future Retail Ltd (FRL) was actively involved in its negotiation, performance and was its ultimate beneficiary. In paragraph 139 of the interim order, the Emergency Arbitrator recorded nine factors which prima facie make out a strong case for including FRL in these proceedings. The factors submitted by the Claimant pri... |
id_503 | 0 | Date: 13-05-2021. This matter was called on for hearing today. For Petitioner(s) by Court's Motion: Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Advocate on Record. Ms. Cheryl Dsouza, Advocate. For Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India; Ms. Ashwariya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Rajat Nair, Advocate; Mr. Kan... |
id_504 | 0 | Present: C.R.A. 37 of 2017 (CRAN 2 of 2021) Md. Israil. The State of West Bengal for the appellant: Mr. Sourav Chatterjee, Advocate; Md. M. Nazar Chowdhury, Advocate; Ms. Priyanka Saha, Advocate. For the State: Mr. Binay Panda, Advocate; Mrs. Puspita Saha, Advocate. Heard on: 22 December 2021. Judgment on: 2 February 2... |
id_504 | 1 | Further there is no evidence of concoction of a false version or embellishment. Accordingly, the argument advanced in this regard does not stand to reason., Section 37(5) of the Indian Penal Code defines rape as when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman who is under sixteen years of age, with or without her consen... |
id_507 | 0 | 16 December 2022 – The Hon'ble Chief Justice and Hon'ble Judges of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in the Full Court meeting held on 15 December 2022, resolved that all courts other than the High Court shall hereinafter be referred to as the “district judiciary” and not as “subordinate judiciary”, and that all courts... |
id_508 | 0 | Thursday, the 1st day of September 2022 / 10th Bhadra, 1944. Writ Petition (Civil) praying inter alia that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed along with the Writ Petition (Civil) the High Court be pleased to set aside Exhibit P9 issued by the fifth respondent in response to Exhibit P8 and issue a writ i... |
id_509 | 0 | Jan Kalyan Samiti versus State of Haryana and others. Present: Mr. Deepender Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Aman Bahri, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. This case has been taken up for hearing through videoconferencing. Notice of motion returnable on 19 November 2020. Mr. Aman Bahri,... |
id_51 | 0 | Reportable Criminal Appeal No. 742 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5598 of 2020) Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Appellant versus the State of Maharashtra and others Respondents. Criminal Appeal No. 743 of 2020 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 5599 of 2020) and Criminal Appea... |
id_51 | 1 | On the basis of the above submissions, it has been urged that the appellant has been made a target of the vendetta of the State government, which emerges from the successive events advertised to above which have taken place since April 2020. Hence, it has been urged that there is absolutely no ground to continue the ar... |
id_51 | 2 | Supreme Court of India should oust and obstruct unscrupulous litigants from invoking the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of India on the drop of a hat to file an application for quashing of launching an FIR or investigation and then seek relief by an interim order. It is the obligation of the Supreme Court o... |
id_51 | 3 | In this batch of cases, a prima facie evaluation of the First Information Report does not establish the ingredients of the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants are residents of India and do not pose a flight risk during the investigation or the trial. There is no app... |
id_510 | 0 | Appellant: Ravindra Pratap Yadav. Respondent: Shrimati Asha Devi and others. Counsel for appellant: M. Islam, Ahmad Saeed, Azim Ahmad Kazmi. Honourable Justice Suneet Kumar, Honourable Justice Rajendra Kumar IV., This Family Court appeal challenges the dismissal order dated 28 November 2005, passed by the Principal Jud... |
id_512 | 0 | The Collegium of the Supreme Court recommended the names of three Advocates and a Judicial Officer for appointment as Judges of the High Court of Uttarakhand. The Advocates are Shri Rakesh Thapliyal, Shri Pankaj Purohit and Shri Subhash Upadhyay. The Judicial Officer is Shri Vivek Bharti Sharma. On 07 September 2022 th... |
id_513 | 0 | Reserved Case: Writ Petition No. 9814 of 2020. Petitioner: Uttam Chand Rawat. Respondent: State of Uttar Pradesh and seven others. Counsel for Petitioner: Shyam Shanker Pandey. Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C. Honourable Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Acting Chief Justice; Honourable Prakash Padia, Judge; Honourable Sanjay Kum... |
id_513 | 1 | In times of normal functioning such occasions do not arise except for routine inspections with a view to see that things are moved smoothly in keeping with fiscal policies in general. There are a number of such companies carrying on the profession of banking. There is nothing which can be said to be close to the govern... |
id_513 | 2 | From the discussion aforesaid and in the light of the judgments referred above, a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution would be maintainable against the Government, an authority, a statutory body, an instrumentality or agency of the State, a company which is financed and owned by the State, a private bod... |
id_514 | 0 | This writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is at the instance of Rahul alias Golu, son of Naresh Rahora, resident of Tahsil Pichhore, District Shivpuri, Madhya Pradesh, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 06/09/2021 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent No.3 whereby the ... |
id_514 | 1 | As a matter of fact, the Indian Trust Act, 1882 begins with an exposition that it is an Act to define and amend the law relating to private trusts and trustees. Further, the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sheikh Abdul Kyum v. Mulla Alibhai (All India Reporter 1963 Supreme Court 309) has observed that section 1 o... |
id_516 | 0 | Mr. H.P. Randhir, Advocate for the applicant No.1; Mr. R.B. Bagul, Applicant for the respondent No.1; Mr. S.N. Dudhate, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Present application has been filed under the inherent powers of the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for quashing Criminal Miscel... |
id_517 | 0 | Criminal Original Petition Nos. 20576 and 21967 of 2023. Petitioners: Selva Muthukumar, G. Greatwin P. Rayen, Mu Thupattan (in Criminal Original Petition No. 21967 of 2023) and P. Raja Shankar (in Criminal Original Petition No. 20576 of 2023). Respondent/Complainant: State represented by Inspector of Police, Yercaud Po... |
id_518 | 0 | Ambadi B., age 22 years, occupation Student, residing in Room No. 107, Hostel No. 4, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Deonar, Mumbai – 88, is the applicant. The respondent is the State of Maharashtra at the instance of Police Station, Azad Maidan, Criminal Reference Number 28/2020. Appearance: Advocate for applicant ... |
id_519 | 0 | Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 13029/1985 Date: 07-11-2023. Parties: Ms. Aparajita Singh, Senior Advocate (Additional Counsel); Mr. Siddhartha Chowdhury, Advocate (Additional Counsel); Mr. Tushar Mehta, Learned Senior Government; Mr. Wasim Qadri, Senior Advocate; Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, Advocate on Record; Ms. Suhas... |
id_52 | 0 | Applicant: Shrimati Chantara Opposite Party: State of Uttar Pradesh Counsel for Applicant: Ajay Kumar Vashistha Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A. Honourable Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J., Heard Mr. Ajay Kumar Vashistha, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Additional Government Advo... |
id_520 | 0 | Samina Arif Khan alias Dhanlaxmi Chandrakant Devrukhkar, 52 years old, Housewife, Indian inhabitant, residing at B-204, Sanghavi Complex, Pearl CHS Ltd., Naya Nagar, Near Ganga Complex, Mira Road (East), Mira Bhayander, Thane, Maharashtra 401107., Petitioner: Dhanlaxmi Chandrakant Devrukhkar alias Samina Arif Khan, res... |
id_520 | 1 | Needless to state that the Bombay High Court, when confronted with the conduct as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, must proceed to deal with all the parties responsible for the same, strictly and take them to task, in order to prevent recurrence of the same., Mister Kohli has brought to our notice that the Bombay... |
id_522 | 0 | Reportable Writ Petition (Civil) No. 493 of 2022: Subhash Desai (Petitioner) versus Principal Secretary, Governor of Maharashtra and Others (Respondents). Also Writ Petitions (Civil) Nos. 469, 468, 470, 479 and 538 of 2022 are pending. Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud presided over the proceedings., The... |
id_522 | 1 | The petitioners have urged that this aspect of the decision in Nabam Rebia (supra) ought to be referred to a Bench of seven Judges of the Supreme Court of India because In Kihoto Hollohan v. Zachillhu, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court of India held that the Court cannot interfere in disqualification proceeding... |
id_522 | 2 | Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel for the respondents made the following submissions: The disqualification petitions under the Tenth Schedule must be decided by the Speaker. Reliance by the petitioners on Rajendra Singh Rana (supra) is erroneous because in that case, the disqualification petitions were already... |
id_522 | 3 | Supreme Court of India further observed that the finality clause contained in Paragraph 6(2) did not completely exclude the jurisdiction of courts. However, it was held that such a clause limits the scope of judicial review because the Constitution intended the Speaker or the Chairman to be the repository of adjudicato... |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.