1. On or about 13th December, 2000, the respondent-Company1 approached the appellant-Corporation2 for financial assistance to set up a cold storage unit in the District of Dimapur, Nagaland.kratikrat

1. The appellant has filed the present appeals challenging the common Judgment and Final Order dated 28/29.11.2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned order”) passed by the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of...

2. In these appeals under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the appellants namely R. Ashoka in SLP (Crl.)9070 of 2018 and C. Sandeep Sahu in SLP (Crl.) 9614 of 2018, pray that this Court quash and set aside judgment dated...

1. This appeal has been preferred by the Appellant challenging the Judgment dated 16.07.2015 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment”) passed in CASE NO. 210/2009 by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New...

1. The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the judgment and order dated 10.07.2013 passed by the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (for short ‘APTEL’) in Appeal No. 112 of 2012.

1. Arising out of the judgement dated 30.03.2022 passed in LPA No. 269 of 2012 wherein the judgement dated 14.12.2011 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (s) No. 5743 of 2005 was set-aside by Division Bench of the High Court of...

1. The appellant is the original complainant who by preferring this appeal, seeks to call in question judgment and order dated 10.10.2012 of the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 8119 of 2007, whereby the High Court...

1. For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts:—

1. For convenience of reference, this judgment is divided into the following parts:

1. For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided into the following parts: