Geek Upd8 - Law Reporter

Latest Judgments


You might have been injured because of the negligence of someone else. If this is the case, you need to seek out a lawyer who will defend your rights in a court of law. It is important that the person or company who is responsible for your injuries is forced to compensate you for lost wages if you are not able to work. There are many lawyers who specialize in personal injury cases. However, you need to carefully look at all of your options. Do not simply hire the first lawyer you find. The following tips will assist you in finding a competent personal injury lawyer.

Supreme Court of India at Delhi Judgments available for download as PDF

GeekUpd8 Doc Id # 707695

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- Harjit Singh Bedi and J.M. Panchal, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 1252 of 2006. D/d. 11.8.2009.

State of Punjab - Appellant
Versus
Rajinder Singh - Respondent

For the Appellant:- H.M. Singh, Ms. Jasneet Kuar, Praveen Kumar Singh and Kuldip Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent :- Sushil Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Tajinder Kuar, Aditya Kumar, Mennakshi Kumar and Sheetal Prasad Juneja.

JUDGMENT

Harjit Singh Bedi, J. - This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the judgment and order dated 22.07.2004 in Criminal Appeal No. 481 of 1999 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby the High Court had allowed the appeal filed by the accused-respondent Rajinder Singh setting aside his conviction and sentence of life imprisonment and fine under Section 302 IPC and under Section 27 of the Arms Act, by giving him the benefit of doubt and had also dismissed the appeal against acquittal filed by the appellant-State against the acquittal of Kuldip Singh and Rachhpal Singh, by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot.

Calcutta High Court, West Bengal Judgments

GeekUpd8 Doc Id # 707694

Calcutta High Court

Before:- Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
Civil Revisional Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
C.O. No. 631 of 2018

Smt. Bindu Dadlani
Vs
Smt. Gita Ghosh

Judgment

Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
The defendant in an eviction suit has filed the instant application. The petitioner had filed her examination-in-chief in connection with an application under Section 7(1) and (2) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1997 and had sought an opportunity to lead evidence. On a particular date, when petitioner was absent, such prayer of the petitioner, for leading evidence, was turned down by the trial court. Challenging such order, refusing leading of evidence, the petitioner preferred a revisional application, giving rise to C.O. No. 4158 of 2017, which is still pending in this Court. Vide order dated December 21, 2017, a coordinate bench of this Court directed the revisional application to appear on a returnable date and granted the petitioner liberty to pray for adjournment before the court below.

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