Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-26-2014
United States v. Apel NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus UNITED STATES v. APEL certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit No. 121038.Argued December 4, 2013Decided February 26, 2014 Vandenberg Air Force Base has been designated a closed base, meaning that civilians may not enter without express permission. The Air Force has granted an easement over two areas of the Base, with the result that two public highways traverse the Base. Adjacent to one of those highways is an area that the Government has designated for peaceful protests. The Base commander has enacted several restrictions to co...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-26-2014
$~ *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:- 26th February, 2014 + CRIMINAL APPEAL5621999 NAND LAL Through ..... Appellant Mr. Akshay Sapra, Advocate. versus STATE Through ..... Respondent Ms. Rajdipa Behura, APP. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL SANJIV KHANNA, J.Appellant Nand Lal by the impugned judgment dated 19 th April, 1999 has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) for murder of Rubi Kumar in the intervening night between 15th and 16th December, 1992 at A-260, Mukandpur Colony, Delhi. The conviction arises out of FIR No.486/1992, police station Samaipur Badli, which became subject matter of Session Case No.135/1994. The appellant was also charged under Section 376 IPC, but has been acquitted. State has not preferred any appeal against the said acquittal. By order of sentence dated 29th April, 1999, the appellant has been sentenced to imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/-. In...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Andhra Pradesh
Decided on : Feb-26-2014
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR Public Interest Litigation No.70 of 2012 26-2-2014 O.M.Debara...Petitioner The Government of Andhra Pradesh General Administration (SPL.C) Department Secretariat Hyderabad Rep. by Chief Secretary and others... Respondents COUNSEL FOR PETITIONER: Sri G. Mohan Rao COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NOs.1 & 2: Additional Advocate General, assisted by Government Pleader for General Administration Dept., and Government Pleader for Home Department COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT NO.3 : Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, Special Standing Counsel for Anti Corruption Bureau COUNSEL FOR RESPONDETN NO.4 : Sri J.V. Prasad HEAD NOTE: ?.CITATIONS:1. 1998 Crl.L.J.2930 2. (2014) 2 SCC13. AIR1958SC148THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.70 OF2012ORDER: (per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This public interest litigat...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-26-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE WEDNESDAY, THE26H DAY OF FEBRUARY20147TH PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).No. 22228 of 2013 (C) ---------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- RAJAGIRI RUBBER & PRODUCE COMPANY LTD., ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, DOOR NO. 27/1032, PANAMPILLYNAGAR, KOCHI-682 036, KERALA, REPRESENTED BY GILBERT D'SOUZA, ASSISTANT VICE PRESIDENT (HR & ADMINISTRATION). BY ADVS. SRI.M.GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SRI.P.GOPINATH, SRI.P.BENNY THOMAS, SRI.K.JOHN MATHAI. RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.2. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.4. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, CIVIL STATI...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Goa
Decided on : Feb-26-2014
Mrs. Roshan Dalvi, J. 1. Rule. Made returnable forthwith. The petitioners have filed Petition No.403 of 2007 challenging the construction of a hotel by Respondent No.6 upon permission granted by respondent No.2 under orders dated 31st July, 1995, 8th October, 1998, 1st September, 2001 and 17th September, 2005 in respect of a specific plan dated 31st May, 1995 and the renewals thereto. Upon the prayer of quashing of these orders the petitioners require directions against respondent Nos. 6 and 7 to restore the original nature of the land upon which they have constructed the hotel in the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ). 2. Upon having seen that the hotel premises has been constructed in the No Development Zone (NDZ) of the CRZ without the approval of the Ministry of Environment and Forests (MEF), which is mandatorily required, the petitioners have filed Petition No. 659 of 2010 for quashing the NOCs of respondent No.4 dated 16th September, 2008, 5th July, 2010 and 6th July, 2010 and constru...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Mumbai Nagpur
Decided on : Feb-26-2014
Oral Judgment: (B.R. Gavai, J.) 1. By these petitions, the petitioners have approached this Court challenging validity of the Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as œthe Act?) being unconstitutional. The petitioners have, in the alternative, prayed for striking down Sections 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12, 16, 18, 19, 20 and 24 of the Act. 2. The facts giving rise to the present petitions, in brief, are as under : The petitioner M/s. Shivraj Fine Art Litho Works, which is a partnership firm, was constituted originally by eight partners. Since dispute arose between the partners, the partnership firm came to be dissolved in January 1974. A suit for dissolution of partnership and for accounts was filed in 1974 being Special Civil Suit No.9/1974, which is pending before the competent Civil Court. In the said suit, Receivers came to be appointed from time to time in respect of properties of the partnership firm. The partnership ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : UK Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-26-2014
The issues raised by this appeal 1. This appeal raises a number of points in connection with the law of private nuisance, a common law tort While the law also recognises public nuisance, a common law offence, this appeal is only concerned with private nuisance, so all references hereafter to nuisance are to private nuisance It should also be mentioned at the outset that the type of nuisance alleged in this case is nuisance in the sense of personal discomfort, in particular nuisance by noise, as opposed to actual injury to the claimant's property (such as discharge of noxious material or removal of support) 2. As Lord Goff of Chieveley explained in Hunter v Canary Wharf Ltd [1997] AC 655, 688, "[t]he term 'nuisance' is properly applied only to such actionable user of land as interferes with the enjoyment by the plaintiff of rights in land", quoting from Newark, The Boundaries of Nuisance (1949) 65 LQR 480 See also per Lord Hoffmann at pp 705-707, where he explained that this principle m...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Punjab and Haryana
Decided on : Feb-25-2014
..... to the extent the violations of arms act, the findings recorded by the special judge do not warrant any interference.178. however, the argument raised is that yusuf nepali was not the part of the conspiracy of hijacking of aircraft and that his retracted confessional statement, does not disclose that he was part of the conspiracy for ..... 309 cr.p.c. for recalling the witnesses for cross- examination. the revision was preferred by abdul latif, which was decided on 23.04.2004. accused yusuf nepali and bhujel have accepted the order passed by the learned trial court. such application was filed when their writ petition challenging the convening of court in jail was pending ..... hereinafter shall be referred to as a-1 to a-10 respectively.3. the appellants namely abdul latif and bhujel are the indian nationals, whereas appellant yusuf nepali is a national of nepal. all other accused are the pakistan nationals and are proclaimed offenders.4. the brief facts leading to the present appeals are that .....
Tag this Judgment!Court : Kerala
Decided on : Feb-25-2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE25H DAY OF FEBRUARY20146TH PHALGUNA, 1935 WP(C).No. 4234 of 2014 (D) --------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------------- S. JYOTHISH KUMAR, EX-SUBEDAR AND HONORARY CAPTAI JC-438848-X, AGED53YEARS, S/O.K.K.SURENDRAN, RESIDING AT 'NEELIMA', HOUSE NO.20, CHAITHANYA NAGAR, PALLIKKARA, KALAMMASSERY, ERNAKULAM-683 503 (OCCUPYING122, NAD QUARTERS, NEAR SANTHIGIRI GATE, NAD P.O.,ALUVA-683 565. BY ADV. SRI.R.PUSHPANGATHAN PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE DEFENCE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, SOUTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 011.2. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 101.3. THE GENERAL MANAGER, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 101.4. SHRI.P.K.PANDA, LIEUTENANT COMMANDER, OFFICER COMMANDING, COMPANY DEFENCE SECUTIRY CORPS, NAVAL ARMAMENT DEPOT, ALUVA, ERNAKULAM-683 101.5. THE OFFICER...
Tag this Judgment!Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Feb-25-2014
Fernandez v. California NOTE:Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co.,200 U.S. 321. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus FERNANDEZ v. CALIFORNIA certiorari to the court of appeal of california, second appellate district No. 127822.Argued November 13, 2013Decided February 25, 2014 Police officers observed a suspect in a violent robbery run into an apartment building, and heard screams coming from one of the apartments. They knocked on the apartment door, which was answered by Roxanne Rojas, who appeared to be battered and bleeding. When the officers asked her to step out of the apartment so that they could conduct a protective sweep, petitioner came to the door and objected. S...
Tag this Judgment!