1. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, including the learned Solicitor General appearing for the Securities and Exchange Board of India1, at some length on the question of competing offers in terms of Regulation 20 of...

1. For the convenience of exposition, this judgement is divided into the following parts:

1. The appellant, who was working abroad lost his employment and returned to his family, comprising of his wife and three children. Unable to get any employment, he took to the bottle and perpetrated continuous harassment on his...

1. Leave granted.

1. Leave granted.

1. Delay, if any, is condoned.

1. This appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital dated 8th March 2013, thereby partly allowing the criminal appeal filed by the appellant.

1. The present appeal arises from the final judgment and order dated 26th July, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 4911 of 2004 & Reference No. 15, which confirmed the judgment and...

1. The State of Uttarakhand has approached this Court being aggrieved by the judgment and final order dated 17th July 2013 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 207 of...

1. Initially, this appeal was preferred by the three accused. Appellant no. 1-Hari Singh (accused no. 1) is no more. The appeal survives insofar as the appellant no. 2-Gopal Singh (accused no. 4) and appellant no. 3-Avtar Singh...