Author: Pranjali Pandya EQUIVALENT CITATION AIR 1963 SC 1094 BENCH JUSTICE K. SUBBARAO RELEVANT PROVISION INVOLVED SECTION 378 AND SECTION 379 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860. INTRODUCTION Theft refers to taking away property of any individual without their consent; the same is a penal offence under Section 378 of the Code and punishment lies
Author: Divya Bargava EQUIVALENT CITATION AIR 2001 S.C.C 3 BENCH Larner C.J , Justice Noble , La Forest , Gonthier , Cory , McLachlin , Iacobucci , Major J.J , L’Heureux –Dube , Sophinka . INTRODUCTION R v Latimer was a case which was held by the Supreme court of Canada. The full name of
Equivalent Citation (1941) 43 BOMLR 122 Bench Divatia J. Introduction This case deals with the offence of cheating , criminal procedure act ,Indian Penal Code and immovable property. This case deals with section 386(2) of Crpc talks about the power of the appellant court and section 70 of Indian Penal Code talks about the fine
Case Name: State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punayya A. EQUIVALENT CITATIONS: 1977 AIR 45, 1977 SCR (1) 601, 1976 SCC (4) 382 B. BENCH: Justice R S Sarkaria, Justice Ranjit Singh, Justice Syed Murtaza Fazalali C. INTRODUCTION: The case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu Punayya is known for explaining the minute differences
AUTHOR: PRANJALI PANDYA CASE NAME: QUEEN EMPRESS v. JOGENDRA CHUNDER BOSE AND OTHER EQUIVALENT CITATION: ILR (1892) 19 Cal 35. BENCH: JUSTICE W.COMER PETHERAM,Kt. INTRODUCTION Before the enactment of the Indian Constitution, Section 124 – A of the Penal Code was used to end any kind of political debate. Under the Sedition provision, the British
Author: Tanushree Bhattacharya The fundamental right of freedom to speech and expression is considered as one of the most sacred rights and also a salient feature of any democracy. Although it is natural that this right is not absolute in the sense that it provides protection against any kind of hate or indecency being spread.
Author: Dhananjay Bhattacharya 1. Introduction The Case is Landmark Judgement, and is one of the first cases where the question about Privacy was considered upon by the Supreme Court. The Petitioner Kharak Singh had challenged in the Supreme Court of India the Constitutional Validity of the Chapter 22 of the UP police Regulations. This challenge
Author: Aadarsh Mishra (The ICFAI University, Dehradun) Smt. Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India & Anr. 1985 AIR 1618 Cr LJ 1302 1985 SCR Supl. (1) 741 Writ Petition No. 845 of 1980 Hon’ble Judges/ Coram: Y.V. Chandrachud, R.S. Pathak, Amarendra Nath Sen. Jurisdiction: Original Jurisdiction u/a 32 of The Constitution of India. Acts/ Sectionsinvolved:
Author: Cherie Dharmani Equivalent Citation 17th December,1998. Bench Mr. G. B. Pattabaik and M . B. Shah. Introduction This case of Bharat Singh Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh, on 17th December, 1998 is an appeal case against the Judgement given on 30th January, 1997 by the Allahabad High Court that arose out of the Sessions
Author: Khushboo Chopra (Khalsa College of Law) CITATION (1977) 2 SCC 806: AIR 1977 SC 1680 BENCH HON’BLE JUSTICE P.N. SHINGHAL INTRODUCTION The Appeal deals with the sub-set of the principle of Res Judicata that is Constructive res judicata mentioned in the explanation IV and V of the section 11 of the civil procedure code.
