Court : Karnataka
R1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE19H DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL W.P. NO.47747/2017 C/W W.P.NOs.433/2017, 10728/2017, 15532/2017, 16281/2017, 17180/2017, 21279/2017, 23095/2017, 23800/2017, 25219/2017, 27437/2017, 27573/2017, 32134/2017, 32849/2017, 33085/2017, 34202/2017, 35384/2017, 36324/2017, 36610/2017, 36640/2017, 36690/2017, 36760/2017, 37713/2017, 40597/2017, 41593/2017, 42959/2017, 43059/2017, 43227/2017, 44273/2017, 44687/2017, 45114/2017, 47887/2017, 50674/2017, 51160/2017, 52972/2017, 53008/2017, 54035/2017, 54081/2017, 54082/2017, 55683/2017, 56296/2017, 235/2018, 463/2018, 777/2018, 1348/2018, 1395/2018, 3032/2018, 3641/2018, 4729/2018, 5389/2018, 5390/2018, 5391/2018, 5704/2018, 6061/2018, 6330/2018, 6376/2018, 6583/2018, 6960/2018, 7868/2018, 8035/2018, 8186/2018, 8187/2018, 8189/2018, 8190/2018, 8191/2018, 8210/2018, 8585/2018, 9116/2018, 9117/2018, 9194/2018, 11029/2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE19H DAY OF JANUARY, 2021 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL W.P. NO.47747/2017 C/W W.P.NOs.433/2017, 10728/2017, 15532/2017, 16281/2017, 17180/2017, 21279/2017, 23095/2017, 23800/2017, 25219/2017, 27437/2017, 27573/2017, 32134/2017, 32849/2017, 33085/2017, 34202/2017, 35384/2017, 36324/2017, 36610/2017, 36640/2017, 36690/2017, 36760/2017, 37713/2017, 40597/2017, 41593/2017, 42959/2017, 43059/2017, 43227/2017, 44273/2017, 44687/2017, 45114/2017, 47887/2017, 50674/2017, 51160/2017, 52972/2017, 53008/2017, 54035/2017, 54081/2017, 54082/2017, 55683/2017, 56296/2017, 235/2018, 463/2018, 777/2018, 1348/2018, 1395/2018, 3032/2018, 3641/2018, 4729/2018, 5389/2018, 5390/2018, 5391/2018, 5704/2018, 6061/2018, 6330/2018, 6376/2018, 6583/2018, 6960/2018, 7868/2018, 8035/2018, 8186/2018, 8187/2018, 8189/2018, 8190/2018, 8191/2018, 8210/2018, 8585/2018, 9116/2018, 9117/2018, 9194/2018, 11029/2...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Furman v. Georgia - 408 U.S. 238 (1972) U.S. Supreme Court Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) Furman v. Georgia No. 69-5003 Argued January 17, 1972 Decided June 29, 1972 * 408 U.S. 238 CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA Syllabus Imposition and carrying out of death penalty in these cases held to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. No. 69-5003, 225 Ga. 253, 167 S.D.2d 628; No. 69-5030, 225 Ga. 790, 171 S.D.2d 501; No. 69-5031, 447 S.W.2d 932, reversed and remanded. Page 408 U. S. 239 PER CURIAM. Petitioner in No. 69-5003 was convicted of murder in Georgia, and was sentenced to death pursuant to Ga.Code Ann. 26-1005 (Supp. 1971) (effective prior to July 1, 1969). 225 Ga. 253, 167 S.E.2d 628 (1969). Petitioner in No. 69-5030 was convicted of rape in Georgia, and was sentenced to death pursuant to Ga.Code Ann. 26-1302 (Supp. 1971) (effective prior to July 1, 1969). 225 Ga. 790, 171 S.D.2d 501 (1969). Petiti...
Tag this Judgment!Court : House of Lords
LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD My Lords, 1. This is a case about the award of interest. Questions about interest usually arise where the claim is presented as ancillary to a claim for a principal sum for which the court is asked to give judgment for the recovery of a debt or as damages. Less usually they can arise where interest is sought on a principal sum which has been paid before judgment. But in this case interest is the measure of the principal sum itself. 2. The question is how that sum should be measured. It is agreed that the calculation of interest should be the method of measurement for the sum that is to be awarded. But the parties are at issue as to how the interest should be calculated. The choice is between simple interest and compound interest. If simple interest is used, it is agreed that it should be at the rate that is appropriate for the calculation of an award of interest under the statute. If compound interest is used, various methods of calculation are available and the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.104 OF2015ANOOP BARANWAL PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA RESPONDENT WITH WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) No.1043 OF2017WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO.569 OF2021AND WRIT PETITION(CIVIL) NO.998 OF2022JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.INDEX A. THE CASES: THE FOUR WRIT PETITIONS ......................................................................................... 3 B. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS; SHRI GOPAL SANKARANARAYANAN, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL IN WRIT PETITION (C) No.1043 OF2017............................................................................... 7 C. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF SHRI PRASHANT BHUSHAN, LEARNED COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.104 OF2015 .................................................................... 11 D. SUBMISSIONS BY SHRI JAYA THAKUR, PETITIONER IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No.998 OF202216 E. SUBMISSIONS OF SHRI KALEESWARAM RAJ, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE I...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.2222 OF2021NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ANAND SONBHADRA ..RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL No.2367-2369 OF2021NEW OKHLA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ..APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MANISH GUPTA & Anr. Etc. ..RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT K.M. JOSEPH, J.1. Hardly six years old, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (hereinafter referred to as the IBC) continues to be a fertile ground to spawn 1 litigation. Born in the year 2016, the IBC this time around has given rise to the question as to whether the appellant would be a financial creditor and entitled to be so treated in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP, in short) commenced against the corporate debtor under the IBC. THE APPEALS CIVIL APPEAL NO.2222/2021 2. The appellant NOIDA initially submitted Form B and claimed as an operational creditor in regard to the dues outstanding under the lease. Subsequently the appell...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE4H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.118 OF2021CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.53 OF2021 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.54 OF2021AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1068 OF2020IN CRL.A.118 OF2021 BETWEEN:1. Sri. Rangaswamy @ Ranga S/o Ramakrishnappa Aged about 31 years R/at Rangaswamy Provision Store 13th Cross, Near Mullakatamma Temple Mayura Nagara, Andrahalli Main Road Peenya 2nd Stage Bengaluru 560 058.2. Sri. R. Shankar S/o. Ramaiah Aged about 29 years R/at No.106, 2nd Cross 1st Main, Sanjeevini Nagar Hegganahalli, Peenya 2nd Stage Bengaluru 560 058. 23. Sri. Raghavendra @ Raghu S/o. Jayaram Aged about 29 years R/at Om Shakthi Temple Road Hegganahalli, Peenya 2nd Stage Bengaluru 560 058. ...Appellants (By Sri. B.V. Acharya Sr. Counsel for Sri. Vishnumurthy - Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka By Chamarajpet Police Station Rep. by Special Publ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE4H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.118 OF2021CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.53 OF2021 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.54 OF2021AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1068 OF2020IN CRL.A.118 OF2021 BETWEEN:1. Sri. Rangaswamy @ Ranga S/o Ramakrishnappa Aged about 31 years R/at Rangaswamy Provision Store 13th Cross, Near Mullakatamma Temple Mayura Nagara, Andrahalli Main Road Peenya 2nd Stage Bengaluru 560 058.2. Sri. R. Shankar S/o. Ramaiah Aged about 29 years R/at No.106, 2nd Cross 1st Main, Sanjeevini Nagar Hegganahalli, Peenya 2nd Stage Bengaluru 560 058. 23. Sri. Raghavendra @ Raghu S/o. Jayaram Aged about 29 years R/at Om Shakthi Temple Road Hegganahalli, Peenya 2nd Stage Bengaluru 560 058. ...Appellants (By Sri. B.V. Acharya Sr. Counsel for Sri. Vishnumurthy - Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka By Chamarajpet Police Station Rep. by Special Publ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
R1IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE4H DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE T.G.SHIVASHANKARE GOWDA CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.118 OF2021CONNECTED WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.53 OF2021 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.54 OF2021AND CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1068 OF2020IN CRL.A.118 OF2021 BETWEEN:1. Sri. Rangaswamy @ Ranga S/o Ramakrishnappa Aged about 31 years R/at Rangaswamy Provision Store 13th Cross, Near Mullakatamma Temple Mayura Nagara, Andrahalli Main Road Peenya 2nd Stage Bengaluru 560 058.2. Sri. R. Shankar S/o. Ramaiah Aged about 29 years R/at No.106, 2nd Cross 1st Main, Sanjeevini Nagar Hegganahalli, Peenya 2nd Stage Bengaluru 560 058. 23. Sri. Raghavendra @ Raghu S/o. Jayaram Aged about 29 years R/at Om Shakthi Temple Road Hegganahalli, Peenya 2nd Stage Bengaluru 560 058. ...Appellants (By Sri. B.V. Acharya Sr. Counsel for Sri. Vishnumurthy - Advocate) AND: State of Karnataka By Chamarajpet Police Station Rep. by Special Publ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1961Guj151; (1961)2GLR343
Bhagwati, J.1. This Second Appeal raises a question of considerable importance regarding proprietary rights in lands granted by Rulers of Indian States before the merger of those States with the Dominion of India and the effect of the merger on such proprietary rights. Several arguments have been addressed to us relating to different aspects of this question and the arguments have been both able and ingenious. In order to understand and appreciate these arguments, it is necessary to set out the facts giving rise to this appeal. The facts are not many and may be briefly stated as follows:2. Prior to 15th August 1947, the Sant State was an independent native State under the paramountcy of the British Crown. On 15th August 1947, India obtained independence and became a Dominion by reason of the Indian Independence Act, 1947. At the same time, the sovereignty of the British Crown over the Indian States lapsed by reason of Section 7 of that Act and as a result thereof, the Sant State became...
Tag this Judgment!