Geek Upd8 - Online Law Reporter

Latest Post

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Before:- A.M. Badar, J.
Criminal Revision Application No. 69 of 2017. D/d. 22.3.2017.

Balasaheb @ Suryakant Yashwantrao Mane - Applicant
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondent

For the Applicant :- Rahul S. Kate, Advocate.
For the Respondent/State :- S.V. Gavand, APP.
Bombay High Court Judgments
ORDER
A.M. Badar, J. (Oral) - By this revision petition, revision petitioner/original accused no.2 is challenging the charge framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Waduj, on 7th January 2017, for offences punishable under Sections 19 read with Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, (POCSO Act), Section 202 of the IPC and under Section 3(2)(vi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1988.

Bombay High Court Judgments

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Before:- A.M. Badar, J.
Criminal Revision Application No. 687 of 2016. D/d. 24.3.2017.

Gurunath Laxman Gawli Adult Indian Inhabitant - Applicants
Versus
State of Maharashtra - Respondents

For the Applicants :- Aditya Gore, Advocate.
For the Respondents-State :- S.V. Gavand, APP.
For the Respondent No. 2 :- Sandeep Singh, Advocate.

JUDGMENT
A.M. Badar, J. (Oral) - Petitioners Gurunath Gawli and Sangita Gawli who are accused in Crime No.455 of 2014 registered with Police Station, Mulund at the instance of Sunita Bomble, (widow of the deceased Umesh Bomble) for offences punishable under Sections 306, 323, 504, 506, 427 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 32B and 33 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, by this application are challenging the order dated 21.11.2016 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Bombay thereby rejecting their application for discharge in Sessions Case No.680 of 2015 and 278 of 2016 so far as offences punishable under Sections 306, 323, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and under Section 33 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, (presently Maharashtra Money Lenders Act) are concerned.


Humans have been mining and using asbestos for thousands of years, but it became a central part of commercial  products in the 1800s during the Industrial Revolution. Its use peaked during World War II and continued to be a popular building material until the 1970s, when health risks were made public. Since then, asbestos use is heavily regulated, but it can still be found in products that are manufactured and sold in the United States.

DELHI HIGH COURT

Before:- Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
W.P.(C) No. 2792 of 2017. D/d. 1.5.2017.

Sanjay Yogi Goel - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Rajiv Bajaj, Advocate.
For the Respondents No. 1 :- Ms. Sangita Rai with Pradeep Singh Tomar, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 2 :- Anuj Aggarwal with Ms. Deboshree Mukherjee, Advocates
Delhi High Court, Delhi Judgments
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. (Oral) - The petitioner, by the present petition, had impugned the order dated 06.03.2017, passed by the Authorization Committee of Max Super Speciality Hospital, whereby, permission was declined to the petitioner for undergoing the kidney transplant.
2. The petitioner had applied for permission under the provisions of Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act').

Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Judgments

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT

DIVISION BENCH :-HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE S.C. SHARMA

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY

WP No.5870/2016

Manish Kedia & Others
vs.
Shri S.L. Jain (Retired Justice) and another

Mr V.N. Dubey, learned counsel counsel for the petitioners.

Mr Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the respondents

J U D G M E N T

PER.. S.C. SHARMA, SHARMA, J

The petitioners before this court have filed this present writ  petition being aggrieved by the order dated 30-04-2016 passed by the sole Arbitrator (Respondent No.1).

Yes, you've read it right, Justice CS Karnan have directed the Air Control Authority, Delhi not to allow 8 Supreme Court Judges including Chief Justice of India to leave India and go abroad. The order heading reads as common Suo Motu Judicial Order in the interest of the Nation to protect the General Public from corruption and unrest.

The list of 8 Supreme Court judges banned from going abroad include:

  1. Chief Justice of India
  2. Justice Dipak Misra
  3. Justice J.Chelameswar
  4. Justice Ranjan Gogoi
  5. Justice Madan B Lokur
  6. Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose
  7. Justice Kurian Joseph
  8. Mrs.Justice R. Banumathy
The reasoning that has been given in the order for passing this order reads as, if the accused are permitted to travel abroad, there is probability of virus of caste discrimination spread in the asid country by such perpetrators.

Puneet Batish Advocate

{facebook#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Adv.Batish} {twitter#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Twitter} {google-plus#http://g8.geekupd8.com/+pb} {pinterest#http://g8.geekupd8.com/Pinterest} {youtube#http://g8.geekupd8.com/YouTube}

Contact Form

Name

Email *

Message *

Powered by Blogger.
Javascript DisablePlease Enable Javascript To See All Widget