Created by Fuzzy Cloud | Our 2nd AI-Powered Solution
7 judgments · newest first · showing 1–7
The petitioners were accused of cheating and criminal breach of trust for issuing dishonoured cheques for the purchase of steel bars, leading to a criminal complaint under Sections 406, 420 and 114 of the IPC and Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. They filed a Section 239 Cr.P.C. …
The petitioners, Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency and others, challenged the order of charge framed by a Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, alleging that it was an interlocutory order barred by Section 19(3)(c) of the Act and by Section 397(2) of the CrPC. The Supreme Court …
The appellants, Harshad S. Mehta and others, sought to revoke conditional pardons granted by the Special Court under the Special Court (Trial of Offences Relating to Transactions in Securities) Act, 1992, arguing that the Court lacked jurisdiction to grant pardon because the power under Sections 306 …
Amrit Nahata filed a writ petition challenging sections of the Cinematograph Act and Censorship Rules and seeking certification of his film ‘Kissa Kursee Ka’. The Supreme Court ordered the film’s negatives and prints to be preserved and screened before five judges, but the film was not made …
Vidya Charan Shukla was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment exceeding two years, but his conviction was stayed pending appeal. He filed his nomination for the Lok Sabha election, which was accepted despite an objection that he was disqualified under Section 8(2) of the Representation of the …
The Supreme Court examined the conviction of V.C. Shukla and Sanjay Gandhi for alleged conspiracy to destroy the film "Kissa Kursi Ka" under various sections of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the Special Courts Act, 1979 – which created special courts for offences by persons holding high …
V.C. Shukla was charged under the Special Courts Act, 1979 and the Special Judge ordered that a charge be framed against him. The State raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the order was merely an interlocutory one and that, under section 11(1) of the Act (which contains a non‑obstante …
