1. Heard Shri Ranjan Mukherjee and Ms. Astha Sharma, learned counsel for the parties.

1. There is a challenge in this batch of petitions to the constitutional validity of Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code 18601 on the ground that it is ultra vires Article 19(1)(a) and Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of...

1. An agreement was entered into on 02.08.2006 between the appellant and M/s KST Infrastructure Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Corporate Debtor’), for development of land licensed with the appellant admeasuring...

1. This Constitution Bench has been constituted to consider whether the declaration made by a Constitution Bench of this Court, in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation1, that Section 6A of...

1. Leave granted.

1. These appeals1 arise from a final order2 of the Delhi High Court rejecting a petition for quashing criminal proceedings, filed by the DBS Bank India Limited (second respondent in the first appeal/appellant in second the...

1. Since the issues raised in all the captioned appeals are the same; the parties are also same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment passed by the High Court of Gujarat those were taken up for hearing analogously...

1. Delay condoned.

1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 29.09.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 2022 of 1992 by the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Nagpur Bench.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.