Judgment Name: Saurav Das vs Union of India Judgment Date: January 20, 2023 Bench: Justice Ajay Rastogi and Justice Bela M. Trivedi Brief facts of this case: A bench made up of judges MR Shah and CT Ravikumar held onto it while rejecting a PIL filed by RTI activist and investigative journalist Saurav Das. The […]

Judgment Name: John Anthonisamy @ John V/S State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police Judgment Date: January 19, 2023 Bench: Justice Mr. Shah and Justice C.T.Ravikumar   Brief facts of this case: According to the prosecution’s case, PW-1 hired the deceased to operate a cab that belonged to him. The deceased departed his home on

Brief facts of this case: The Union of India filed this Civil Appeal because it was dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court of Guwahati, which determined that the original writ petitioners were entitled to Nursing Allowance. The respondents in the appeal were Nursing Assistants in various hospitals under the Border Security Force’s establishment.

Brief facts of this case: The plaintiff, appointed as a Constable, was sent a notice/Memorandum of charge under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules 2001 from the office of the Commandant Discipline, CISF, alleging that the petitioner had silenced the fact that he was associated with a criminal case for the offence under Sections 323,

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE In this instance, the complainant brought charges against the defendants under Sections 4v99 and 500 of the IPC, among other things. The Magistrate rejected this because there was no evidence to support the claim. After all, it fell under the Fourth exemption of Section 499 of the IPC. The complainant

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE The conflict is typical of those that arise between promoters and direct appointees over inter-se-seniority. The issue here is over Inspector positions in the Income Tax Department of the state of Gujarat. The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pensions released Office Memoranda (abbreviated ‘OM’) on February 7th and July

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE In a nutshell, the prosecution claims that the dead, Om Prakash, was friendly with the current appellant/accused, Ram Pratap. On December 13, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. The accused Ram Pratap went to the house of the dead – Om Prakash – and after tea, the two went together. At noon.,

APPELLANT: KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK LIMITED. RESPONDANT: Girnar Corrugators Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.   FACTS: The appellant advanced various credit facilities and to secure such facilities security of two plot were mortgaged along with certain movable fixed assets. Due to non-payment of loan the Secured creditor filed application in district magistrate for recovery of secured assets

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE Rajinder Pal Sharda, Param Pal Sharda (appellant No. 1 in this case), Nitin Sharda, and a man named Harmail Singh were traveling from Ludhiana to Patiala in a Hyundai Accent Car with the registration number PB­11­AE­9400, which was being driven by Nitin Sharda. A Scorpio Car with the registration number