1. Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Limited1 seeks a clarification of the order of this Court dated 29 November 2022.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Respondent no. 1 (dealer in TATA vehicles) and respondent no. 2 are the claimants. Respondent no. 1 took out a fire insurance policy with the appellant for a cover of Rs. 75,38,000/- and respondent no. 2 for a cover of Rs. 90...

1. Leave granted.

1. The Appeals are lodged against the Order passed by the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Revision Nos. 595 and 596 of 2003.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common order dated 05.02.2020 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short, ‘National Commission’) passed in the respective Appeal...

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

1. The current civil appeals,1 under Section 125 of the Electricity Act, 2003, (hereafter, “the Act”) challenge orders of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (hereafter, “APTEL”), dated 06.12.2018 (“first impugned order”)2 and...

1. The petitioner is accused of having committed offences under Section 409, 420, 468 etc. IPC along with Section 132 d and other offences under the Goods and Services Tax Act and fraudulently claimed input credit.

1. The Criminal Appeal Nos. 415-417 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal Nos. 418 of 2019 challenge the judgments and orders dated 8th May 2018 and 3rd September 2018 respectively, passed by the learned Division Bench of the Gauhati High...