Ad
related to: latest landmark supreme court judgment on demonetisation trial pdf full
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Similar PILs were also filed in the Supreme Court of India. [187] In November 2017, the Supreme Court of India referred all cases which have similarity to demonetisation to constitutional bench to review the legality of the demonetisation, implementation irregularities and violation of people's rights by limits on cash withdrawals. [188]
Justices K.N. Wanchoo, Vishistha Bhargava and G.K Mitter (writing together); R.S. Bachawat; V. Ramaswami. Golaknath v. State Of Punjab (1967 AIR 1643, 1967 SCR (2) 762), or simply the Golaknath case, was a 1967 Indian Supreme Court case, in which the Court ruled that Parliament could not curtail any of the Fundamental Rights in the Constitution.
Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum [1985], [1] commonly referred to as the Shah Bano case, was a controversial maintenance lawsuit in India, in which the Supreme Court delivered a judgment favouring maintenance given to an aggrieved divorced Muslim woman. Then the Congress government enacted a law with its most controversial aspect being the ...
Misuse of office, Disproportionate assets, Criminal conspiracy, Corruption. Verdict. Supreme Court: Trial court verdict restored. High Court: Acquitted of all charges, bail bonds discharged. Trial Court: 4 years' simple imprisonment for all four, a fine of ₹ 100 crore for Jayalalithaa and ₹ 10 crores for the other three. Convictions.
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. 786 (2011), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that struck down a 2005 California law banning the sale of certain violent video games to children without parental supervision.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), [1] was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held, 5–4, that the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development does not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Kennedy v. Bremerton School District, 597 U.S. 507 (2022), is a landmark decision [1] by the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held, 6–3, that the government, while following the Establishment Clause, may not suppress an individual from engaging in personal religious observance, as doing so would violate the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.
Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443 (2011), is a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court held that speech made in a public place on a matter of public concern cannot be the basis of liability for a tort of emotional distress, even if the speech is viewed as offensive or outrageous.