BA LLB A Identification Name of the case: Union of India (UOI) and Anr. Vs. Raghubir Singh (Dead) by Lrs. Etc. Jurisdiction: Appeal From the Judgment and Order dated 06.12.1984 of the Delhi High Court in Regular First Appeal Nos. 113 and 114 of 1968. Level of the deciding Court: Supreme Court Date of decision: 16.05.1989 Equivalent citation: AIR1989SC1933‚ [1989]66CompCas466(SC)‚ [1989]178ITR548(SC)‚ 1990()JLJ251(SC)‚ JT1989(2)SC427‚ 1989(2)KLT168(SC)‚ 1989-1-LW414‚ 1989MhLJ672‚ 1989(1)SCALE1337
Premium Common law Jury Supreme Court of the United States
LAWS1021 – CRIME – Week 3 Class 1 1. introduction 2. Ubiquity of discretion 3. Regulating discretion 4. Prosecutorial discretion 5. The Chaser case 6. Two tiers of justice 7. Magistrates and Local Courts 8. Supreme and District Courts 9. High Court appeals 10. Crown appeals From Last Class Jurisdiction Notion of how it is risen and how it is imposed In 1788‚ assumed‚ put upon Australia from the act of colinisation Sovereignty From british states‚ then Australia as a commonwealth Citizenship
Free Judge Jury Court
the Dutch Colonial system‚ which are Herziene Inlandsch Reglement (HIR) and Rechtsreglement voor de Buitengewesten (RBg.). Furthermore‚ based on the Temporary Law to the Emergency Condition Law No. 1 of 1951 on the provisional considerations state that to those two regulations remained in force up to the new regulations in relation to the Civil Procedure Process will be issued in purpose of ensuring uniformity in the administration‚ competency and procedure of the civil courts. However‚ in relation
Premium Judge Legal terms Court
Indian legal system also. The main principles of doctrine of precedent as applicable in India are: 1. All inferior and subordinate court is bound by the decision of the High courts to which they are subordinate. Decisions of other High court are of only persuasive value for the subordinate court. Thus High court can bind only those inferior courts which are within their territorial jurisdiction. As for example district courts of Delhi are bound to follow the precedent set by Delhi High Court‚ but not
Premium Supreme court Court Judge
INTRODUCTION Zahira’s case is the landmark judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on law relating to the Contempt of Court. The case is commonly referred as the Best Bakery Case. The incident involved the burning down of the Best Bakery‚ a small outlet in the Hanuman Tekri area of Vadodara as a part of communal riots on March 1‚ 2002. Twelve Muslims and two others were burnt alive in the premises of the bakery‚ "allegedly by a Hindu mob". Zahira H. Sheikh‚ a 19-year-old during the incident
Free Judge Court Contempt of court
National Judicial Policy 2009 A year for focus on Justice at the Grassroot Level National Judicial (Policy Making) Committee Published by: Secretariat‚ Law & Justice Commission of Pakistan‚ Supreme Court Building‚ Islamabad www.ljcp.gov.pk CONTENTS 1. 2. 3. Justice at the Grassroot Level Executive Summery National Judicial Policy a. b. c. d. Independence of Judiciary Misconduct Eradication of Corruption Expeditious Disposal of Cases • Short Term Measures I ii • 4. Annexure Criminal Cases
Free Judge Court Law
This Software is Licensed to: K C LAW COLLEGE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (L.B.) SUPREME COURT BAR ASSOCIATION V/S UNION OF INDIA Date of Decision: 17 April 1998 Citation: 1998 LawSuit(SC) 452 Hon’ble Judges: S C Agrawal‚ G N Ray‚ A S Anand‚ S P Bharucha‚ S Rajendra Babu Appeal Type: Writ Petition (C) Appeal No: 200 of 1995 Subject: Civil‚ Constitution Head Note: ADVOCATES ACT‚ 19 Power of the Supreme Court to determine if advocate was guilty of ’professional misconduct’ Section 38 -- Constitution
Premium Common law Judge Contempt of court
CIVIL PROCEDURE II Lecture 1 ORDER OF PROCEEDINGS The place and mode of trial is usually determined by type of trial and proceedings. If you make an application by summons‚ then you will be heard in Chambers. Procedure 1 – where defendant elects not to call evidence The Plaintiff or advocate makes an opening speech referred to sometimes as an opening statement. After that the plaintiff witnesses are called‚ examined cross examined and re-examined. After that the plaintiff or
Premium Appeal Appellate court Trial court
Mohammad Yatim Tugono — later were proven guilty by the West Jakarta District Court in 1985 and 1987 of counterfeiting ownership documents to resell the plots of land. The legal battle spanned more than 10 years as Portanigra insisted that the residents certificates were counterfeit. In 1997‚ the West Jakarta District Court and the Jakarta High Court ruled in favor of the residents. Portanigra appealed the case to the Supreme Court‚ which in major reversal in 2001‚ ruled in favor of the developer. The
Premium Jakarta
apply in practice’ • The issue: after a not guilty verdict (acquittal) in the District Court‚ could an appeal could be brought to the Circuit Court by the prosecution as provided for in S. 310 of the Fisheries (Consolidation) Act 1959? • The relevant precedent: The People (DPP) v O’Shea [1982]. • 3-2 majority of the SC: an appeal against an acquittal lies to the Supreme Court from the Central Criminal Court. • Two members of the majority (O’Higgins and Walsh JJ) suggested the SC could order
Premium Law Tort Jury