Rameshwar Prasad v/s. Union of India, popularly known as the ‘BIHAR ASSEMBLY DISSOLUTION CASE’ is a matter as one of its kind which primarily relates to the subject matter of Election Law which has paved the way for more fairer & transparent process
In the aforesaid facts the judges were firmly of the view that there is no question of any violation of any of the rights of the appellant under the Indian Constitution. He was offered the services of a lawyer at the time of his arrest and at all rel
The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Bombay High Court dated 8th September, 2010 and allowed the appeal. The Court has ascertained the transaction through the tests and removed the doubts pertaining to the transaction. This decision has furth
This Case is popularly known as Habeas Corpus Case. A Presidential order was issued on 25th June, 1975, by exercising power conferred under Article - 352 (2) of the Indian Constitution, which declared emergency due to internal disturbances.
In the matter of Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. Transferred Case (Civiil) No. 66 of 2018 In Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 1399 of 2018
Judgement passed in Rafale Review Petition. Centre's objections on admissibility of documents dismissed by the Supreme Court.
The application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is allowed and the proceedings initiated based on the FIR instituted at the instance of espondent no. 2 are hereby quashed.
In a recent case between Fast Track v. Ola, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) prima - facie opined that the radio taxi service Ola cabs had abused its dominant position within the meaning of Sec 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter ref
The appellant had an exhausted relationship with his wife within two years of marriage. After one year of living with his brother she returned and was mistreated and starved while she was being kept under locks. She somehow breaks free from the confi
The victim had gone to the field to collect green grass where the appellant approached her for sexual intercourse. At the victim’s protest, the appellant took the victim to the ground and proceeded to conduct sexual intercourse with her by force. Thi