Reliance Infrastructure Limited vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors
Judges: Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
21 January, 2019·Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J1 Leave granted.2 The validity of a tariff regulation framed by the Maharashtra Electricity Regulatory Commission (MERC) was questioned before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. Bereft of jargon – both legal and scientific – the plea of the appellant is of discrimi...
Supreme Court Of India
Anil Kumar vs Union Of India And Ors
Judges:
21 January, 2019·Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.Leave granted.The appellant was aggrieved by the rejection of his claim for financial upgradation by the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (“CSIR”) with effect from 10 May 2011. He was also aggrieved by not being promoted to the post of Senior Controller...
Supreme Court Of India
Murti Bhawani Mata Mandir Rep Through Pujari Ganeshi Lal ( D ) Through Lr Kailash vs Rajesh & Ors Judgment Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud ,Passed By The High Court Of M P At Indore ) Murti Bhawani Mata Mandir Rep Through Pujari Ganeshi Lal ( D ) Through Lr Kailash vs Rajesh & Ors Date : 21-01-2019Through Pujari Ganeshi Lal ( D ) Through Lr Kailash vs Rajesh & Ors Date : 21-01-2019 This Was Called On For Hearing Today Coram : Hon'Ble Dr Justice D Y Chandrachud Hon'Ble Mr Justice Hemant Gupta For Mr Alok Bhachawat, Adv K vs Bharathi Upadhayay, Adv Ms Pratibha Jain, Aor For Mr Harshvardhan Jha, Adv Mrs Yugandhara Pawar Jha, Adv Ms Mayuri Shukla, Adv Mr Abhishek Chaudhary, Aor Upon Hearing The Counsel The Court Made The Following
Judges: Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
21 January, 2019·REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 880 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 2378 of 2006) MURTI BHAWANI MATA MANDIR REP. THROUGH PUJARI GANESHI LAL (D) THROUGH LR KAILASH Appellant(s) VERSUS RAJESH & ORS. Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Dr. D...
Supreme Court Of India
Nand Kishore vs State Of Madhya Pradesh
Judges: L Nageswara Rao
18 January, 2019·R. Subhash Reddy, J.1. Leave granted.2. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.798 of 2013 filed before the High court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, aggrieved by the judgment dated 25.06.2013. By the aforesaid judgment, while dismissing the appeal preferred by t...
Supreme Court Of India
Rajesh vs State Of Haryana
Judges: L Nageswara Rao, M R Shah
18 January, 2019·Non-ReportableIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No. 93 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8667 of 2016) RAJESH Appellant(s) Versus STATE OF HARYANA ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave gra...
Supreme Court Of India
Himanshu vs B Shivamurthy & Anr Judgment Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J A Complaint Under Section 138 Of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Was Instituted By The Against The According To The Complainant, The Had Borrowed A Sum OfAsserted, The Direction Of The High Court That The Company Could Be Impleaded/Arraigned At This Stage Is Erroneous The First Submission On Behalf Of The Is No Longer Res Integra A Decision Of A Three Judge Bench Of This Court In Aneeta Hada vs Godfather Travels And Tours Private Limited1 Governs The Area Of DisputeArrive At The Irresistible Conclusion That For Maintaining The Prosecution Under Section 141 Of The Act, Arraigning Of A Company As An Accused Is Imperative The Other Categories Of Offenders Can Only Be Brought In The Drag-Net On The Touchstone Of Vicarious Liability As The Same Has Been Stipulated In The Provision Itself “ The Judgment Of The Three Judge Bench Has Since Been Followed By A Two Judge Bench Of This Court In Charanjit Pal Jindal vs L N Metalics2 There Is Merit In The Second Submission) The Failure Of The Drawer To Make Payment Of The Amount Of Money To The Payee Or The Holder In Due Course Within Fifteen Days Of The Receipt Of The Notice In Msr Leathers vs S Palaniappan3, This CourtHave Been Committed By The Person Issuing The Cheque ” The Importance Of Fulfilling These Conditions Has Been Adverted To In A Recent Judgment Of A Two Judge Bench Of This Court In N Harihara Krishnan vs J Thomas4 Adverting To The Ingredients Of Section 138Himanshu vs B Shivamurthy & Anr Date :
Judges: Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta
17 January, 2019·Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was instituted by the respondent against the appellant. According to the complainant, the appellant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 4,15,000/- “for his business development” and on the same day, t...
Supreme Court Of India
Raju Jagdish Paswan vs The State Of Maharashtra
Judges: S A Bobde, L Nageswara Rao, R Subhash Reddy
17 January, 2019·L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.Leave granted.1. The issue that arises in these Appeals is whether the death penalty imposed on the Appellant is disproportionate to the crime committed by him.2. At 20.45 hrs on 21.06.2010, Hanmant Sheshrau Shirsat gave a statement in the Miraj Rural Police Station that his daug...
Supreme Court Of India
Yogendra @ Jogendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Judges: S A Bobde, L Nageswara Rao, R Subhash Reddy
17 January, 2019·S.A. BOBDE, J.Leave granted.2. These appeals are filed against the Judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, dated 12.12.2014 confirming the death sentence awarded to the appellant by the Sessions Court, Ambah, District Morena (M.P.) vide its judgment in Sessions Trial No.388/2013...
Supreme Court Of India
Indian Hotel And Restaurant ... vs The State Of Maharashtra Home ...
Judges: A Bhushan, A Sikri
17 January, 2019·A.K. SIKRI, J.This batch of three Writ Petitions was heard together and is being disposed of by this Common Judgment as similar issues and prayers are raised in all these petitions.2) The instant writ petitions have been preferred under Article 32 of the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by AS...
Supreme Court Of India
Indian Hotel And Restaurant Association ( Ahar ) & Anr vs The State Of Maharashtra & Ors W I
Judges: A K Sikri, Ashok Bhushan
17 January, 2019·A.K. SIKRI, J.This batch of three Writ Petitions was heard together and is being disposed of by this Common Judgment as similar issues and prayers are raised in all these petitions.2) The instant writ petitions have been preferred under Article 32 of the SIGN Constitution of India, challenging certa...
Supreme Court Of India
Don’t wait for legal issues to escalate
By continuing past this page, you agree to our Terms of Service, Cookie Policy, Privacy Policy, Refund Policy and Content Policies. © 2023 - Uber9 Business Process Services Private Limited. All rights reserved.