1. For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts:—

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

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. 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. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

1. Leave granted.