Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
On 5 July 2023, the petitioners requested directives from the Bench to ensure adequate protection for one of them, aiming to safeguard her life, liberty, and dignity, while also making a plea to avoid any coercive actions against the petitioner.In response, the Maharashtra Police assured to provide protection by assigning a plainclothes constable to the same-sex couple, who had expressed ...
The main building at the said Complex, constructed in the year 1925 by the Portuguese Government, was renovated by the Goa state government and inaugurated by the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court Shri M.B.Shah on 2.10.1997.The Hon'ble Chief Justice of Bombay High Court, Shri Y. K. Sabharwal, inaugurated the 2nd building on 9.9.1999.
There was only one preliminary objection filed by the counsel for the defendant, and this was that the Court should not proceed to decide these constitutional issues since there was no claim for compensation originally made in the writ petition and these issues could not be said to arise in the writ petition. However, the Court, while rejecting ...
Bombay High Court: 14 August 1862: Indian High Courts Act 1861: Goa, Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu, Maharashtra: Mumbai: Aurangabad, [A] Nagpur, [A] Panaji [A] 94 71 23 Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya: 4 Calcutta High Court: 2 July 1862: Indian High Courts Act 1861: Andaman and Nicobar Islands, West Bengal: Kolkata: Port Blair [B ...
On 27 April 2016, five people filed a new writ petition in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.The petitioners claimed that the issues which they raised in their petition were varied and diverse from those raised in the pending curative petition in the 2013 Koushal v.
Despite widespread high court support for Habeas Corpus, Justice Chandrachud went along with Justices A.N. Ray, P.N. Bhagwati, and M.H. Beg, to reject this position, [3] stating: in view of the Presidential Order dated 27 June 1975 no person has any locus to move any writ petition under Article 226 before a High Court for habeas corpus or any ...
On 2 March 2012, Govt of India filed a review petition in Supreme Court seeking partial review of the court's 2 February 2012 order which had quashed 122 licenses. [5] The Govt questioned Supreme Court's authority over ruling against the first-come first-served policy but stayed away from challenging the cancellation of 122 licences issued during the tenure of A Raja as Telecom Minister. [6]
K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra; Court: Supreme Court of India: Full case name: K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra: Case history; Prior actions: Jury's Judgment for defendant, Jury() Trial-Charge-Misdirection-Reference by Judge, High Court Conviction under Sec.302 of the Indian Penal Code