Court : Delhi
$~J- * % + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on:06. 09.2017 Pronounced on:31. 01.2018 O.M.P.(EFA)(COMM.) 6/2016 DAIICHI SANKYO COMPANY LIMITED ........ Petitioner Through Mr.Gopal Subramanium, Sr. Adv. Mr.Arvind Nigam, Sr.Adv. and Mr.Arun Kathpalia, Sr. Adv. with Mr.Amit Mishra, Mr.Mohit Singh, Ms.Hima Lawrence, Mr.Akshay Puri, Mr.Keshav Raychaudhuri, Mr.Rohan Jaitley, Mr.Aditya Shankar, Mr.Mikhil Sharda, Mr.Jayvardhan Singh, Mr.Shivam Pandey, Ms.Samridhi Hota & Mr.Samaksh Goyal, Advs. Mr.Abhijeet Sinha, versus MALVINDER MOHAN SINGH AND ORS. ....... RESPONDENTS Through Mr.Harish N.Salve, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Anuradha Dutt, Ms.Fereshte D.Sethna, Ms.Vijaylakshmi Menon, Ms.Ekta Kapil, Ms.Neeharika Aggarwal, Ms.Akanshsa Banerjee, Mr.Anirudh Bakhru & Mr.Chaitanya Kaushik, Advs. for R-1 to 4 & R-13. Mr.Sandeep Sethi, Sr.Adv. with Mr.Siddharth Aggarwal, Advocates for R-5 and 9 to 12. Mr.Rohit Chaudhary and Ms.Preeti Kohli, Advs. for R-6 to R-8. Mr.Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr.Adv. wit...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
2024 INSC310REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No.OF2024[Arising out of SLP (C) No.6937 of 2021]. THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MOHD. ABDUL QASIM (DIED) PER LRS. RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT M. M. Sundresh, J.1. Leave granted.2. The statement made by the Tribal Chief Seattle, way back in the year 1854, in his letter to the offer of George Washington, the former First President of the United States of America, to buy their land, is a pearl of wisdom not understood by the ignorant, educated modern mind. Every part of the earth is sacred to my people. Every shining pine needle, every sandy shore, every mist in the dark woods, every meadow, every humming insect. All are holy in the memory and experience of my people. xxx xxx xxx This we know: the earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the earth. All things are connected like the blood that unites us all. Man did not weave 1 the web of life; he is merely a strand in it. W...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Doe v. Bolton - 410 U.S. 179 (1973) U.S. Supreme Court Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973) Doe v. Bolton No. 70-40 Argued December 13, 1971 Reargued October 11, 1972 Decided January 22, 1973 410 U.S. 179 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA Syllabus Georgia law proscribes an abortion except as performed by a duly licensed Georgia physician when necessary in "his best clinical judgment" because continued pregnancy would endanger a pregnant woman's life or injure her health; the fetus would likely be born with a serious defect; or the pregnancy resulted from rape. 26-1202(a) of Ga. Criminal Code. In addition to a requirement that the patient be a Georgia resident and certain other requirements, the statutory scheme poses three procedural conditions in 26-1202(b): (1) that the abortion be performed in a hospital accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals (JCAH); (2) that the procedure be approved by the hospi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL No.889 of 2007 Arup Bhuyan .. Appellant Versus State of Assam & Anr. .. Respondents With Review Petition (Criminal) No.417/2011 In Criminal Appeal No.1383/2007 With Review Petition (Criminal) No.426/2011 In Criminal Appeal No.889/2007 With Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.5971/2019 With Special Leave Petition (Crl) No.5964/2019 With Criminal Appeal No.1383/2007 2 With SLP(Crl.)...CRLMP No.16637/2014 With Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.5643/2019 With Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.6270/2019 JUDGMENT M. R. Shah, J.1. Present reference to the larger Bench is made against the judgment and order in the case of Arup Bhuyan vs. Union of India, (2011) 3 SCC377as well as State of Kerala vs. Raneef, (2011) 1 SCC784 pursuant to the order passed by this Court dated 26.08.2014, reported as (2015) 12 SCC702 Background of the Reference 2. That the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Raneef (supra) wh...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Silver v. New York Stock Exchange - 373 U.S. 341 (1963) U.S. Supreme Court Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341 (1963) Silver v. New York Stock Exchange No. 150 Argued February 25-26, 1963 Decided May 20, 1963 373 U.S. 341 CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Syllabus Petitioners, two Texas over the counter broker-dealers in securities, who were not members of the New York Stock Exchange, arranged with members of the Exchange in New York City for direct-wire telephone connections which were essential to the conduct of their businesses. The members applied to the Exchange, as required by its rules promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, for approval of the connections. Temporary approval was granted and the connections were established; but, without prior notice to petitioners, the applications were denied later, and the connections were discontinued, as required by rules of the Exchange. Allegedly as a result, one...
Tag this Judgment!