Expand

Home / Bare Acts / Central Acts and Rules / Political and Election Laws

Political and Election Laws

Bare Acts

Census Act,1948

Census Rules,1990

Government of India (Allocation of Business) Rules,1961

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Act,1991

Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Rules,1993

Leaders And Chief Whips Of Recognised Parties And Groups In Parliament (Telephone And Secretarial Facilities) Rules, 1999

Representation of the People Act,1951

State Emblem of India (Prohibition of Improper Use) Act,2005

State Emblem Of India (Regulation Of Use) Rules, 2007

Two Member Constituencies (Abolition) and Other Laws Repeal Act, 2001

Bare Acts with Rules, Regulations & Amendments

Facebook Comments

MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA

Constitution of India, Article 245(1) - Professional Education) Act, 2006 - Karnataka State Civil Services (Regulations of Promotion, Pay & Pension) Act, 1973. The question involved in the writ petition/s is, whether the State of Kerala is competent to promulgate the Kerala Professional Colleges (Regularisation of Admission in Medical Colleges) Ordinance, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Ordinance\") notified on 20.10.2017, which is intended to nullify judgments and orders of this Court and encroaches upon the power of the judiciary. The Writ Petition allowed.

Arun Mishra and Indira Banerjee, JJ.

12/9/2018 View judgement PDF

THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. HANSRAJ @ HANSU

N.D.P.S. Act, Section 20(b)(ii). This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 13.12.2005 in Criminal Appeal No. 3651 of 2002 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in and by which the High Court has set aside the conviction of the respondent-accused for the offence under Section 20(b)(ii) of N.D.P.S. Act and also the conviction under Section 60 of Excise Act and also sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the respondent-accused. The Appeal dismissed.

R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, JJ.

12/9/2018 View judgement PDF

SANGITA @ REKHA SAMBHAJI MALODE Vs. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Indian Penal Code, Section 306. The appellant, who is the sister-in-law of the deceased- Surekha, has been convicted for the offence under Section 498-A and Section 306 I.P.C. read with Section 34 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and five years respectively (to run concurrently). Vasant, brother of the appellant and husband of the deceased-Surekha, was also convicted for the same offences and is said to have already undergone the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him. The Appeal partly allowed.

R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, JJ.

12/9/2018 View judgement PDF

KANNAN Vs. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d). These appeals arise out of the conviction of the appellants under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and the appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. The Appeal dismissed.

R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, JJ.

12/9/2018 View judgement PDF

M.C.MEHTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 - Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 - Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. The principal question that arises in this batch of substantive applications is whether, in the State of Haryana, land notified under the provisions of the Punjab Land Preservation Act, 1900 (for short the PLP Act) is forest land or is required to be treated as forest land. If so, whether construction carried out by the applicant R. Kant & Co. on this land is in contravention of the notification dated 18th August, 1992 issued under the provisions of the PLP Act, the Forest (Conservation) Act, 1980 and decisions of the Court. The petition disposed of.

Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.

11/9/2018 View judgement PDF

ASHOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF U.P .

Service Matters This appeal is filed by the four appellants questioning the legality and correctness of the final judgment and order dated 12.10.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No.1078 of 2006 which arose out of order dated 08.08.2006 passed by the Single Judge of the High Court in W.P. No. 13274 of 2006 and other connected writ petitions. The Appeal disposed of.

Abhay Manohar Sapre and Vineet Saran, JJ.Abhay Manohar Sapre and Vineet Saran, JJ.

11/9/2018 View judgement PDF

NARAYANA GRAMANI AND ORS. Vs. MARIAMMAL AND ORS.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 100. This appeal is filed by the plaintiffs against the final judgment and order dated 09.07.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No.652 of 1995 whereby the Single Judge of the High Court allowed the second appeal filed by defendant Nos.2 to 5 and set aside the judgment and decree dated 05.08.1994 passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chingalpattu in A.S. No.72 of 1993 and dismissed the suit filed by the appellants herein. The Appeal allowed.

Abhay Manohar Sapre and Vineet Saran, JJ.

11/9/2018 View judgement PDF

RAJIV VIJAYASARATHY RATNAM Vs. SAVITHA SEETHARAM

Civil Matter. The parties are before this Court, aggrieved by the interim order dated 08.09.2016 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore passed in C.C.C. No.1236 of 2015. The dispute pertains to the custody of their child. Since the main matter is pending before the High Court, we do not propose to deal with the merits of the matter. We make it clear that during the pendency of C.C.C. No.1236 of 2015 before the High Court, arrangement regarding custody, made by the Family Court, Bangalore, shall continue to operate. However, the exchange point shall be Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Temple, Melleshwaram, Bangalore. The child will be picked up and dropped at the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanam Temple, Melleshwaram, Bangalore, on the designated date by 5:30 P.M. in the evening. The visitation of the appellant/father for 22.09.2018 will stand substituted to 15.09.2018. The Appeal disposed of.

Kurian Joseph and Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ.

11/9/2018 View judgement PDF

M/A PSA MUMBAI INVESTMENTS PTE. LIMITED Vs. THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 16. The factual matrix in which the present matter arises is that the Respondent No.1 issued a Global Invitation of Request for Qualification (hereinafter referred to as \"RFQ\") in March, 2009 inviting applications from interested persons for the development of the 4th Container Terminal Project on Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer Basis at Jawaharlal Nehru Port. The RFQ document of 02.03.2009 expressly contained a clause by which the bidder could be a Single Entity or a Consortium. On facts, the appellant and the Respondent No.2 before us together formed a Consortium with the appellant as the Lead Member, Technical Member and Financial Member of the Consortium. It may be pointed out at this stage that the appellant is a Company registered in Singapore, whereas Respondent No.2 is a Company registered in India. The Appeal allowed.

R.F. Nariman and Indu Malhotra, JJ.

11/9/2018 View judgement PDF

KALYAN SINGH Vs. RAVINDER KAUR (D)THRU LRS. AND ANR

Ordinary Civil Matters : Others. This appeal arises out of judgment dated 13th May, 2016 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Regular Second Appeal No.859 of 1988 in which the High Court has reversed the judgment of the First Appellate Court and restoring the judgment of the trial court thereby affirming the decree in favour of respondents/plaintiff for declaration and possession. The Appeal allowed.

R. Banumathi and Indira Banerjee, JJ.

11/9/2018 View judgement PDF

Latest CaseLaw

Latest laws Helping good people to do good things.

High Court: Tenants have no inherent right in this country to violate the law by overstaying once the tenancy stands terminated, Read Judgement

Litigious Neighbour can’t harass residents for minor deviations in Construction, High Court, Read Judgement

Enquiry officers in DE shall not act in a mechanical manner just to pass a guilty finding, rules DB of HC, Read Judgement

Married Daughter can’t claim continuous possession of her Mothers’ property, it is contrary to the customs, Read HC Judgement

Untouched Legal Aspects of Marriage, Adoption & Property Inheritance Entangling the LGBT Community By: Pankaj Sinha

Drug Trafficking in India: Legal Perspective By Yash Soni

Self Defence Training For Women: Mandatory For Schools, Colleges & Corporate World By: Abhipsha Mohanty

Challenging Arbitration Awards: A Critical Analysis By: Aakanksha Derashree

How to file Maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure By: Lovejeet Singh

All About Ad-Hoc and Institutional Arbitration By: Jyotsana Uplavdiya

Transfer Petition- A Judicial Analysis By: Jyoti Goel

Political and Election Laws

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Get Latest Laws News Alert

Get Latest Laws News Alert