Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
In India, landmark court decisions come most frequently from the Supreme Court of India, which is the highest judicial body in India. High courts of India may also make such decisions, particularly if the Supreme Court chooses not to review the case or if it adopts the holding of the lower court.
Judgment is the final reasoned decision of the Court as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. Where the accused is found guilty, the judgment must also contain an order requiring the accused to undergo punishment or treatment. Every court must deliver the judgement in the language of that court as determined by the State Government.
In a significant judgment on 4 January, the Delhi High Court held a police officer guilty of contempt of court for arresting a man in violation of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case Arnesh Kumar vs State of Bihar. The Court sentenced the police officer to one-day imprisonment for contempt of court.
"Leading case" is commonly used in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth jurisdictions instead of "landmark case", as used in the United States. [ 1 ] [ 2 ] In Commonwealth countries, a reported decision is said to be a leading decision when it has come to be generally regarded as settling the law of the question involved.
[2] [7] [5] However, in later judgements including the Danial Latifi v. Union of India case and Shamima Farooqui v. Shahid Khan, the Supreme Court of India interpreted the act in a manner reassuring the validity of the case and consequently upheld the Shah Bano judgement, and The Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act 1986 was ...
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
Full case name: Deepika Singh versus Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors. Decided: 16 August 2022: Citations: C.A. No 5308/2022: Court membership; Judges sitting: D. Y. Chandrachud, J.; and A. S. Bopanna, J. Case opinions; Atypical families are deserving of equal protection under law and benefits available under social welfare legislation ...
The case came up for hearing before a bench comprising Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S. Muralidhar, and the judgment was delivered on 2 July 2009. [9] The Court located the rights to dignity and privacy within the right to life and liberty guaranteed by Article 21 (under the fundamental Right to Freedom charter) of the Constitution, and held that criminalization of consensual gay ...