Judgments

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 […]

APPELLANT: B. VENKATESWARAN & ORS. RESPONDENT: P. BAKTHAVATCHALAM. FACTS: Original accused (petitioner)have conspired and unlawfully encroached the pathway adjacent to original complainant’s house. He started to construct temple built up on the complainant water pipeline, Sewage Pipeline and EB cable and thereby caused obstructions to him to enjoy his property. It was alleged that the

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE – In the case referred as Bhim Singh v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, Bhim Singh is an Indian politician, who was holding the position of an M.L.A. in 1985 in the Jammu and Kashmir National Panther Party. He won the election of 2002 on the behalf of his party. This

ABSTRACT In the proceedings commenced under Section 132 of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 before the High Court, the petitioner submitted an application for bail. The claims against the petitioner concerned the transportation of unmanufactured tobacco, and it was claimed that such procurement was for the clandestine manufacture and supply of zarda

FACTS: By decision dated 14.04.2000, the appellant, M/s Nepa Limited, was ordered to pay the respondent, Manoj Kumar Agrawal, Rs. 14,49,300/-. The money was used to reimburse Manoj Kumar Agrawal for the balance of his security deposit, which he paid in accordance with the agreement of October 25, 1996. The award stated that Rs. 14,49,300/-

Court name: The Supreme Court of India. Judgement name: Small Industries Development Bank of India vs M/s SIBCO Investment Pvt. Ltd.  Judgement date: January 3rd 2022 Judges/ Bench: R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy Introduction: The challenge in these appeals is to the judgment and order dated 25.11.2019 of the Division Bench of the High

SUSHIL KUMAR v THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 401 OF 2022 This Civil appeal arises out of the final judgement dated 29.07.2015 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh passed in LPA No. 1910 of 2011.  Facts: The appellant, Sushil Kumar was appointed as a constable in 1995.

This case arises due to dissatisfaction with the impugned judgement and order dated 23.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal No. 29/2011. Legal Provision: The Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971 (‘1971 Act’) came into force in the year 1971. Section 3 of the 1971 Act provides

Civil appeal arises out of the judgement dated 27/02/2022 of the civil appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme court of India in 2564 of 2012 FACTS M. Periyayya Servai had two wives 1) Veerayakli – First Wife 2) Kaliyamma – Second Wife The Son born through first wife is Ramasamy. The Sons born through second wife

Court name : The supreme court of India Judgment Name : State of U.P  Vs. Jai Dutt and Anr.  Judgment Date : January 19th, 2022 Judges/Bench : M.R. SHAH and B.V. NAGARATHNA Introduction  Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No.8 70