Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home  Phrase:supreme 2013

Mar 13 2014

State Through Reference Vs. Ram Singh & Ors.

  • Decided on : 13-Mar-2014

Court : Delhi

... the matter was listed for arguments on charge for 24.01.2013. (Vide order dated 21.01.2013) (8) On 23.01.2013, the Hon ble Supreme Court passed orders in Transfer Petition (Criminal No.D-2322 of DEATH SENTENCE REFERENCE NO.6/2013, 2013) wherein the learned Sessions Judge was directed, inter alia, to give ... dated 17.01.2013) (7) On 21.01.2013, the matter came up before the Sessions Court. Mr. M.L. Sharma appeared on behalf of accused Mukesh and the matter was listed for arguments on charge for 24.01.2013. (Vide order dated 21.01.2013) (8) On 23.01.2013, the Hon ble Supreme Court passed ... and his family and as such the transfer petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29.1.2013. In March, 2013, the Appellant Mukesh again appointed him, i.e., M.L. Sharma, Advocate as his counsel, but on 18.4.2013 at the behest of the prosecution the learned Sessions Judge appointed another ... could not be shown by him (M.L. Sharma) to the Supreme Court on account of the dire threats extended to the Appellant and his family and as such the transfer petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 29.1.2013. In March, 2013, the Appellant Mukesh again appointed him, i.e., M.L. ... opinion, that no fault whatsoever could be found in the dying declarations. 282. In a recent judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Ashabai and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 2 SCC224 the Supreme Court while upholding the evidentiary value of multiple dying declarations recorded in the said case, pointed out that the ...

Mar 27 2014

PRESENT: MR. VIKRAM K.CHAUDHRI SR. ADVOCATE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OT ...

  • Decided on : 27-Mar-2014

Court : Punjab and Haryana

... iii) Whether failure to serve the detention order and detain the detenu even after judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.7.2013, when he appeared in Court on 13.8.2013 vitiates the order of detention. iv) Whether respondents are correct in claiming that ascertaining the actual position regarding recourse ... clearly admitted that his pre-execution challenge was rejected by Bombay High Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the detailed final judgement dated 16.7.2013 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissing his pre-execution challenge has also been annexed to the petition. The judgement which extensively dealt ... not even challenge these orders which were passed in favour of the detenu after judgement dated 16.7.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. vi) Thus, even after said judgement dated 16.7.2013, the detenu was neither detained despite his appearance in Court seeking permission to go abroad nor was any ... the terms of the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 16.7.2013. vii) He submitted that delay and casualness in execution may be considered only from 16.7.2013 and not before that, in view of the above judgement dated 16.7.2013. viii) Learned Sr.counsel appearing for the ... detailed judgement dated 16.7.2013 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel appearing for the Detaining Authority also took me through the very same judgement.10. It is seen that in the said judgement dated 16.7.2013 of a Three Judges' Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, all the ...

Jun 25 2013

Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl

  • Decided on : 25-Jun-2013

Court : US Supreme Court

... UNITED STATES Syllabus ADOPTIVE COUPLE v. BABY GIRL, a minor child under the age of fourteen years, et al. certiorari to the supreme court of south carolina No. 12 399. Argued April 16, 2013 Decided June 25, 2013 The Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), which establishes federal standards for state-court child custody proceedings involving Indian children, was ... that protection. Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl - 12-399 (2013) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 12 399 _________________ ADOPTIVE COUPLE, PETITIONERS v. BABY GIRL, a minor child under the age of fourteen years, et al. on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of south carolina [June 25, 2013] Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Kagan join ... the question. Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl - 12-399 (2013) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 12 399 _________________ ADOPTIVE COUPLE, PETITIONERS v. BABY GIRL, a minor child under the age of fourteen years, et al. on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of south carolina [June 25, 2013] Justice Scalia, dissenting. I join Justice Sotomayor s dissent ... need not address this argument because I am satisfied that Congress lacks authority to regulate the child custody proceedings in this case. Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl - 12-399 (2013) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 12 399 _________________ ADOPTIVE COUPLE, PETITIONERS v. BABY GIRL, a minor child under the age of fourteen years, et al. on ...

Apr 17 2013

Missouri v. McNeely

  • Decided on : 17-Apr-2013

Court : US Supreme Court

... convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 . SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus MISSOURI v. McNEELY certiorari to the supreme court of missouri No. 11 1425. Argued January 9, 2013 Decided April 17, 2013 Respondent McNeely was stopped by a Missouri police officer for speeding and crossing the centerline. After ... influence of alcohol is inconsistent with the Fourth Amendment. Missouri v. McNeely - 11-1425 (2013) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 11 1425 _________________ MISSOURI, PETITIONER v. TYLER G. McNEELY on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of missouri [April 17, 2013] Chief Justice Roberts, with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Alito join, concurring in part and ... additional and serious concerns. See ante, at 14 15. Missouri v. McNeely - 11-1425 (2013) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 11 1425 _________________ MISSOURI, PETITIONER v. TYLER G. McNEELY on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of missouri [April 17, 2013] Justice Thomas, dissenting. This case requires the Court to decide whether the Fourth Amendment ... County that had shorter processing times. Id., at 70. Missouri v. McNeely - 11-1425 (2013) SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 11 1425 _________________ MISSOURI, PETITIONER v. TYLER G. McNEELY on writ of certiorari to the supreme court of missouri [April 17, 2013] Justice Kennedy, concurring in part. I join Parts I, II A, II B, and ...

Aug 14 2013

DR. SUNIL KUMAR KAR Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS

  • Decided on : 14-Aug-2013

Court : Orissa

... 2013). Thereafter the choice locking of the candidates was allowed from 26.7.2013 to 28.7.2013 up to 5 PM. After choice-locking, the allotment letter was No.issued to the candidates in view of filing up of the SLP (c). No.24238 of 2013 on 27.7.2013 and said SLP(c ) was disposed of on 30.7.2013, wherein the Hon ble Supreme ... an affidavit on 12.08.2013. As stated above, the choice locking was over on 28.07.2013 and the allotment letter was issued on 30.07.2013.11. There canNo.be admission after cut-off date as fixed by the Hon ble Supreme Court. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of ... a seat in M.S (Orthopedics).5. Referring to the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court dated 1.8.2013 Mr. Purohit submitted that the Hon ble Supreme Court having extended the Medical Counseling and admission till 21st August, 2013, it has far reaching effect in giving relief to the petitioner. Further Mr. ... . Accordingly, the allotment letter was issued immediately on 30.7.2013 and as such counseling was over on 31.7.2013 in obedience to the order of the Hon ble Supreme Court. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in Mridul Dhar (Minor) 9 and another vs. Union of ... 2013 with a wrong notion that the extended cutoff date, i.e., 31.07.2013 fixed by the Hon ble Supreme Court has been further extended, it flouted an advertisement/notification that the 2nd round counseling (Choice locking) for P.G. (Medical & Dental) admission for the academic session 2013-14 will start from 10.08.2013 ...

Dec 13 2013

The Bank of New York Mellon, London Branch Vs. Zenith Infotech Limited

  • Decided on : 13-Dec-2013

Court : Mumbai

... 2013. . The extension from 30 to 40 days expired on 21st October, 2013. In fact on 26th September, 2013, an oral application was made on behalf the Promoters of Zenith before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking extension of time for furnishing the Bank Guarantee beyond 24th October, 2013. However, the same was refused by the Hon'ble Supreme ... period ended 30.6.2013. 27. Since the Hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 30th September, 2013, dismissed as withdrawn, the SLP filed by the Petitioner impugning the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court dated 2nd September, 2013, on 1st October, 2013, the Advocates for the ... . 22. On 26th July, 2013, the SEBI filed a SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court seeking leave to file an Appeal challenging the SAT order. On 27th August, 2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to stay the operation of the SAT order. 23. On 2nd September, 2013, the Division Bench of ... as withdrawn by an order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 30th September, 2013. 24. In the meantime, on 5th September, 2013, the Promoters/Directors of the Company filed a Modification Application in respect of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP filed by SEBI staying the ... Court dated 30th July, 2013 has been confirmed by the order of the Hon ble Division Bench dated 2nd September, 2013 and the SLP preferred there-from has been dismissed as withdrawn by the Company by an order of the Hon ble Supreme Court dated 30th September, 2013. It is submitted by ...

Feb 27 2014

J.Alex Ponseelan Vs. 1.The Director General of Police,

  • Decided on : 27-Feb-2014

Court : Chennai

... has also given two examples. It is not an adulation to say that the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mehar Singh's case reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 685 is a befitting answer to the examples raised by the learned Referring Judge. But the learned Referring Judge' ... the domain of the executive under the Constitution.".68. The Order of Reference has been passed on 07.11.2013. At the time of passing order of reference, the decision reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 685 [Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another Vs. Mehar Singh]. is in force. The Hon' ... discriminatory. However, in a subsequent decision, K.Sathiyaseelan v. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services in W.P.No.2068 of 2013, dated 26.02.2013, Mr.Justice K.Chandru, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ramkumar v. State of U.P and others, reported in AIR2011SC2903held contrary to Explanation (1) to Rule ... IV and Explanations 1 and 2 have been introduced.80. At this juncture, it is apposite to look into paragraph-35 of the Judgment rendered in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 685 [Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and another Vs. Mehar Singh]., wherein it is stated like thus: ".The police force is a ... are not legally sustainable and further for the examples given by the learned Referring Judge, the decision rendered in Mehar Singh's case reported in (2013) 7 Supreme Court Cases 685 by the Hon'ble Apex Court, stands as a befitting answer, and therefore, there is no merit in the Reference in ...

Mar 20 2014

The State of Maharashtra and Others Vs. Rakesh Manohar Kamble @ Niraj ...

  • Decided on : 20-Mar-2014

Court : Mumbai - Nagpur

... Karnataka 2008(13) Supreme Court Cases, 767. ii) Sangeet and another vs. State of Haryana (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 452. iii) Gurvail vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 713 iv) Shankar Kisna Khade vs. state of Maharashtra (2013) 5 Supreme court Case v) State of Rajasthan vs. Jamil Khan 2013 (10) SCC 721. vi) Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah vs. State of Assam (2013) 9 SCC 769 ... Haryana (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 452. iii) Gurvail vs. State of Maharashtra (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 713 iv) Shankar Kisna Khade vs. state of Maharashtra (2013) 5 Supreme court Case v) State of Rajasthan vs. Jamil Khan 2013 (10) SCC 721. vi) Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah vs. State of Assam (2013) 9 SCC 769 vii) Neel Kumar @ Anila Kumar vs. State of Harayana (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases ... (2013) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 713 iv) Shankar Kisna Khade vs. state of Maharashtra (2013) 5 Supreme court Case v) State of Rajasthan vs. Jamil Khan 2013 (10) SCC 721. vi) Bhaikon @ Bakul Borah vs. State of Assam (2013) 9 SCC 769 vii) Neel Kumar @ Anila Kumar vs. State of Harayana (2012) 5 Supreme Court Cases, 766 viii) State of U.P. vs. Satish (2005) 3 Supreme Court ... will be relevant to refer to paragraph no.39 of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of SubalGhorai and others vs. State of West Bengal, reported in (2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 607, which reads as under: 39. It is true that the prosecution has relied on the evidence of interested witnesses but, interested witness is not necessarily a ...

Jul 04 2014

R.Sakthivel Vs. State

  • Decided on : 04-Jul-2014

Court : Chennai

... 2013 dated 21.6.2013, and submitted that Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner therein before the Hon ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.6027-6029 of 2013, was dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court on 26.8.2013. Further, it is submitted that if the guidelines laid down by the Hon ble Supreme ... the petitioner in Crl.R.C.No.851 of 2013 dated 16.7.2013, has been stayed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Special Leave (Criminal) M.P.Nos.24783 of 2013 by order dated 09.12.2013 and the matter is still pending before the Hon ble Supreme Court. 9.The leaned counsel after referring to Section ... was made by the Blue Cross of India before this Court, this Court in Crl.R.C.No.476 of 2013 dated 21.6.2013, after referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of PINJRAPOLE DEUDAR (supra).dismissed the Revision Petition by observing that comparing the deprivation of liberty ... . 23.Therefore, by taking note of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that the order passed by the Court below in C.M.P.Nos.1430, 1431 and 1432 of 2013 dated 21.8.2013 calls for no interference. Accordingly, the Criminal Revision Cases challenging the same ... ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the order passed by the High Court, affirming the order granting interim custody to the owners of the animals. 16.When a similar challenge was made by the Blue Cross of India before this Court, this Court in Crl.R.C.No.476 of 2013 dated 21.6.2013, ...

Jun 30 2014

K.V.KARTHALINGAN Vs. THE GOVERNENT OF TAMILNADU

  • Decided on : 30-Jun-2014

Court : Chennai

... the Tribunal which was confirmed by the Division Bench of this Court. The matter went upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court and by order dated 01.07.2013 in Civil Appeal No.4832/2013, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of the Division Bench in W.P.No.21562/2003 and the order ... given to the petitioner as Regional Transport Officer by way of accelerated promotion should go as per the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4832/2013 dated 01.07.2013 and the same was rightly done by the Government by its subsequent proceeding. But, at the same time, the petitioner is ... some time, we cannot deny his regular promotion from 08.03.2006 since, accelerated promotion was set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4832/2013 on 01.07.2013. 10.When a specific query was raised as to whether there was any legal impediment for the respondents to promote the petitioner ... Transport Officer retrospectively as per the order of this Court and Tribunal since, the said orders were set aside by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4832/2013 dated 01.07.2013 and the Government has also issued consequential order in this regard on 18.03.2014, it should be construed that till 21 ... .429/2002 wherein, the petitioner was directed to be given accelerated promotion. 3.Now, based on the above order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4832/2013, the Government has issued G.O.(Ms)No.216 Home (Tr-II) Department dated 04.03.2014 and wherein, it has been stated as ...

Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //