
Delhi Court acquits Arvind Kejriwal, Manish Sisodia and Yogender Yadav in a 2013 defamation case filed by former MLA of Shahdara constituency
Quality and relevancy; and not quantity of evidence, is what determines the fate of a case.
Quality and relevancy; and not quantity of evidence, is what determines the fate of a case.
Calcutta High Court: Sugato Majumdar, J. allowed a criminal appeal which was assailed against the judgment and order of Additional Sessions Judge
Chhattisgarh High Court: In a case where an election was declared null and void on the grounds of non-disclosure of
Patna High Court: While dealing with a case of rape, A M Badar, J. observed that mere non-offering of physical resistance by
“The suspicion howsoever strong cannot take place of proof.”
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ., allowed an appeal which was filed against
Calcutta High Court: The Division Bench of Joymalya Bagchi and Ananya Bandyopadhyay, JJ. allowed an appeal which was directed against the judgment
Supreme Court: In an interesting case, the Division Bench comprising of L. Nageswara Rao and B.R, Gavai, JJ., acquitted the appellant who
Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench of Arvind Singh Chandel and Sanjay K. Agrawal, JJ. dismissed the acquittal appeal being devoid of
“The purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer is to enquire into an allegation of misconduct by an employee which results in a violation of the service rules governing the relationship of employment.”
Gujarat High Court: The Division Bench of S.H. Vora and Sandeep N. Bhatt, JJ., dismissed an application for special leave to appeal
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Anand Pathak and Satish Kumar Sharma, JJ., dismissed a writ appeal under Section 2(1)
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of S.K. Mishra and A.K. Verma, JJ., dismissed the appeal for acquittal considering it to be
Sikkim High Court: Meenakshi Madan Rai J., while acquitting the accused charged under section 302, 392 and 427 of IPC held that
Kerala High Court: Kauser Edappagath, J., reversed the concurrent findings of Lower Courts, whereby the accused was convicted for the offence of
“We are at pains to observe the manner in which the present case has been dealt with by the trial court as well as by the High Court, particularly, when the trial court awarded death penalty to the accused and the High Court confirmed it.”
Supreme Court: Reminding the Courts of the importance of hierarchy of Courts, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh*, JJ
Supreme Court: In a case where an accused merely pointed to the house where the victim was hiding, thereby helping a fully
Sikkim High Court: The Division Bench of Meenakshi Madan Rai and Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, JJ., allowed an appeal which was filed in
Supreme Court: In a case where a man, after being acquitted in a kidnapping case, had applied for the post of Constable