1. The appellants were subjected to trial in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panchkula(hereinafter being referred to as the ‘trial Court’) in Sessions Case No. 11 of 2003 for the offences punishable under Sections...

1. Aggrieved against the judgment1 passed by the High Court2, the plaintiff is in appeal before this Court. The appellant/plaintiff had filed the suit3 for partition and separate possession of the suit property. It was claimed...

1. Though factually different, these appeals involve common question of law - whether the purchase of a vehicle/good by a Company for the use/personal use of its directors would amount to purchase for “commercial purpose” within...

1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Civil Appeal have filed O.S. No. 13/2000 before the Court of Principal District Judge at Vishakhapatnam. The suit is for partition and possession of plaint schedule property. The prayer reads thus:

1. Though factually different, these appeals involve common question of law - whether the purchase of a vehicle/good by a Company for the use/personal use of its directors would amount to purchase for “commercial purpose” within...

1. Thankamma George/Appellant, and Lilly Thomas/Respondent No. 1, are sisters, and the daughters of one late George. P.M. Thomas/Respondent No. 2 is the husband of Respondent No. 1.

1. These appeals by special leave have been preferred by the State of Punjab to assail the judgment dated 17th July, 2014 rendered by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal Nos. 580 of 2002 and 606 of 2002...

1. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in Civil Appeal have filed O.S. No. 13/2000 before the Court of Principal District Judge at Vishakhapatnam. The suit is for partition and possession of plaint schedule property. The prayer reads thus:

1. Issue notice.

1. The appellant-accused no. 2 has been convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the IPC’).