1. This appeal is at the instance of the original third, second, and fourth defendants. The first and second respondents are the original plaintiffs. The third respondent is the mother of the deceased original first defendant...

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. 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. 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. The Sessions Court convicted the appellant-accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) for committing the murder of Smt Hemwati Bai, who was his stepmother.

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. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

1. Leave granted.

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.