1. The claimants seek enhancement of the award, confined to the conventional heads in consonance with the decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi1. They also rely on the judgment of this Court in Rojalini Nayak v...

1. On or about 13th December, 2000, the respondent-Company1 approached the appellant-Corporation2 for financial assistance to set up a cold storage unit in the District of Dimapur, Nagaland.kratikrat

1. Heard.

Leave granted.

1. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment and order dated 10.07.2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (for short ‘APTEL’) in Appeal No. 112 of 2012.

1. The appellant has filed the present appeals challenging the common Judgment and Final Order dated 28/29.11.2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of...

1. Leave granted.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant challenging the Judgment dated 16.07.2015 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment”) passed in CASE NO. 210/2009 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New...

1. Leave granted.

1. The appellant is the original complainant who by preferring this appeal, seeks to call in question judgment and order dated 10.10.2012 of the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 8119 of 2007, whereby the High Court...