Del HC| Seeds Act not concerned with where and how the seeds are used; Scope explained
Delhi High Court: Dealing with the scope and ambit of the Seeds Act, 1966, Vibhu Bakhru, J held that the Seeds Act
Delhi High Court: Dealing with the scope and ambit of the Seeds Act, 1966, Vibhu Bakhru, J held that the Seeds Act
Supreme Court: When the bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud and Hemant Gupta, JJ was tasked with determining whether a death due to
Supreme Court: The Bench of Abhay Manohar Sapre and Indu Malhotra, JJ has held that pendency of any writ petition by itself
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dr. AK Sikri, Ashok Bhushan and SA Nazeer, JJ decided the important question on the meaning,
Supreme Court: In the case where the Bench of RF Nariman and Navin Sinha, JJ was deciding the question as to the
Supreme Court: In the case where the Court was deciding the issue relating to interpretation of section 24 of the Right to
Supreme Court: The bench of SA Bobde and L Nageswara Rao, JJ defined the scope of the words ‘competent Court’ in Section
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of the expression “the public servant or his administrative superior” under Section 195(1) (a)(i) CrPC, the bench
Supreme Court: Refusing to expand the scope of the word ‘child’ under Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) to include the
Kerala High Court: In a petition filed to quash the ongoing prosecution against the petitioner under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection
Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of A.K Sikri and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ., said that where economic interest competes with the rights
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of the power of the State of Tamil Nadu to attach the immovable property of Financial Establishments
Supreme Court: Dealing with the Section 97 of the Kerala Police Act, 2011 which mandates that the State Government shall ensure a
Supreme Court: Quashing the complaint filed against Mahendra Singh Dhoni for allegedly hurting the religious sentiments of people when an image of
Supreme Court: Dealing with the question as to the time limit for the validity of the Provisional certificate of Registry for a
Supreme Court: The Bench of J. Chelameswar and Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ said that no right or liability can be created by
Supreme Court: The bench of Madan B. Lokur and P.C. Pant, JJ held that a Trust cannot file a complaint under the
Supreme Court: Interpreting Section 33(2) proviso (b) of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 as to the power of the delegated authority to
Supreme Court: The bench of Dipak Misra and R. Banumathi, JJ held that the brother of a married female tenant is neither
Supreme Court: In the matter where the first proviso to Rule 3(2)(c) of the Karnataka Value Added Tax Rules, 2005 was being