Author: Khushboo Chopra CITATION 1994 SCC (2) 14 BENCH JUSTICE K. RAMASWAMY INTRODUCTION The case deals with the explanation VIII of the section 11 of civil procedure code which states that an issue heard and finally decided by the court of limited jurisdiction , competent to decide such issue , shall operates as res judicata
Author: Mayank Raj Case – Bhikari vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh. Citation – 1966 AIR, 1 1965 SCR (3) 194. Bench – J.R.Mudholkar, K.N.Wanchoo, S.M.Sikri. Introduction – The appealing party who murdered a youngster in a merciless way and harmed others was attempted and sentenced under section 302 IPC and his intrigue under the steady
Author: Mayank Raj Case – Bir Singh and Ors. Vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh. Citation – AIR 1978 SC 59, 1978 CriLJ 177 a, (1977) 4 SCC 420. Bench – S M Ali and A Gupta. Introduction – The appellants were attempted under the watchful eye of the Court of the Second Additional Sessions Judge,
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
