Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Calcutta High Court is the oldest high court in the country, brought into existence on 14 May 1862. [2] High courts that handle numerous cases of a particular region have permanent benches established there. Benches are also present in states which come under the jurisdiction of a court outside its territorial limits.
The High Court of Bombay is the high court of the states of Maharashtra and Goa in India, and the union territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Daman and Diu. It is seated primarily at Mumbai (formerly known as Bombay), and is one of the oldest high courts in India. [ 1 ]
The Court emphasized that dismissing the findings of an expert body solely due to opposition undermines democratic principles, and policy shifts driven by external pressures jeopardize the foundational fabric of the nation.The Court concluded by stating its expectation of receiving a status update from the NCERT on this matter during the next ...
However, post bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh, as per the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad was constituted as a common High Court, until the new High Court for the State of Andhra Pradesh is created. Later by a Presidential order, the High Court for the state of Andhra Pradesh was established on 1 ...
Judges of the Supreme Court or a High Court cannot be removed from office once appointed, unless a two-thirds majority of members of any of the Houses of the Parliament back the move on grounds of misconduct or incapacity. [9] [10] A person who has been a judge of a court is barred from practising in the jurisdiction of that court. [citation ...
The jury in the Greater Bombay sessions court had only one task: to pronounce a person as 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty' under the charges. They could not indict any accused nor could punish the accused. The jury in the Greater Bombay sessions court pronounced Nanavati as not guilty under section 302 under which Nanavati was charged, with an 8–1 ...
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]
The petition should also contain statement that the petitioner has not filed any other petition in the High court. It should be accompanied by a certified copy of judgement appealed against and an affidavit by the petitioner verifying the same and should also be accompanied by all the documents that formed part of pleading in Lower court.