FAMOUS CASE

LAW BOOK FAMOUS CASES

Kedarnath Bhattacharji vs Gorie Mahomed

The plaintiff is a Municipal Commissioner of Howrah and one of the trustees of the Howrah Town Hall Fund.

SHANKARI PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA, 1952

In this case, the First Constitution Amendment Act, 1951 was tested on the ground that it abuses the Part-III of the constitution and subsequently, should be viewed as invalid.

RAMVIR v. STATE OF U.P. (A.M. Sapre, J.) (2019)

RAMVIR v. STATE OF U.P. (A.M. Sapre, J.) (2019) 2 Supreme Court Cases 237

(BEFORE ABHAYMANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.) 237 I RAMVIR Versus Appellant;

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Criminal Appeal No. 183 of 2013, decided on October 26, 2018 Respondent.A. Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 148/149 r/w S. 302-Conviction with aid of Ss 148/149 cannot berecorded in the absence of at least 5 accused:

Re: D An Advocate Of The Supreme ... vs Unknown on 23 November, 1955

Equivalent citations: AIR 1956 SC 102, (1956) 58 BOMLR 510, 1956 CriLJ 280

Author: Das

Bench: B Mukherjea, S Das, V Ayyar

JUDGMENT

Das, J.

Dr. D.C. Saxena vs Hon'Ble The Chief Justice Of India on 19 July, 1997

Supreme Court of India

Dr. D.C. Saxena vs Hon'Ble The Chief Justice Of India on 19 July, 1997

Author: K Ramaswamy

Bench: K. Ramaswamy

The State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors V. The Commercial Tax Ofﬁcer, Visakhapatnam & Ors; 1963

The Landmark Judgements of Corporate Law

Harish Chandra Singh v.S.n.Tripathi (AIR 1997 SC 879)

Mr.Daya Ram engaged Mr. Harish Chandra as a lawyer in a consolidation proceeding pending before the consolidation officer. Since Daya Ram could not attend the case regularly, harish Chandra asked him to appoint a mukhtar.

A.K GOPALAN VS. STATE OF MADRAS, 1950

AK Gopalan was a Communist leader who was kept in the Madras Jail in 1950 under the Preventive Detention Law.

Prahalad Saran Gupta v. Bar Council of India(AIR 1997 Sc 1338).

Prahalad Saran Gupta v. Bar Council of India(AIR 1997 Sc 1338).

complaint in the State Bar Council against his Advocate

TukaRam vs State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1978

TukaRam V/S State Of Maharashtra on 15 September, 1978

PETITIONER: TUKA RAM AND ANR.

Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/09/1978

Equivalent citations: 1979 AIR 185, 1979 SCR (1) 810

Seth Mohan Lal v. Grain Chambers Ltd; 1967

The Landmark Judgements of Corporate Law

Indure Ltd.v.Deo Raj Guptha BCI TR Case No.58/1993

SELECTED OPINION OF DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA ON PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

Kulbhushan Jadhav Case

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

17 July 2019 , JADHAV CASE, (INDIA v. PAKISTAN)

Freelance Cartoonist Aseem Trivedi Section 66A of the IT Act,

under Section 66A and B of the IT Act, for defamation under Sections 500,

Pandurang dattatray Khandekar vs Bar Council of India and others AIR,1984 Supreme Court 110.

A group of 12 advocate practicing in two courts of S.D. Ms in the collectorate of Pune are the complainants both the state bar council and Bar Council of Delhi through its disciplinary committee found the appellant and one Agvane Guilty of giving improper legal advice and held the charge of professional misconduct provided the and suspended the appellant for a period of 4 months and Agvane for a period of 2 months therefrom.

Prahalad Saran Gupta v. Bar Council of India (AIR 1997 Sc 1338).

Prahalad Saran Gupta v. Bar Council of India (AIR 1997 Sc 1338).

The degree holder has filed a complaint in the State Bar Council against his Advocate (Gupta) alleging the following professional misconduct.

Re South of England Natural Gas and Petroleum Co. Ltd. 1911

The Landmark Judgements of Corporate Law

Baswarooponi v.Babulalsoni BCI DC Appeal No.25/1992

SELECTED OPINION OF DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE OF THE BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA ON PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT

GOLAK NATH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, 1967

In this case, the Petitioner Golak Nath and his family claimed in excess of 500 sections of land in Punjab. Be that as it may, during then the state government made an enactment ‘Punjab Securities and Land Tenures Act’

(TAJ TRAPEZIUM CASE) M. C. Mehta v Union of India AIR 1997 SC 734

ISSUES AIR POLLUTION

(TAJ TRAPEZIUM CASE) M. C. Mehta v Union of India AIR 1997 SC 734

Activist-lawyer M. C. Mehta fought a long and arduous battle over the pollution caused by industries in the vicinity of the famous Taj Mahal in Agra, which were causing damage to the famous monument, especially from the Mathura reﬁnery. Mehta moved the Supreme Court in 1984, claiming that the Sulphur dioxide released by the Mathura reﬁnery combined with oxygen and moisture in the air to produce sulphuric acid in the atmosphere, which was corroding the white marble of the Taj Mahal.

V.P.KumarVelu vs State Bar Council of India

The commission and secretary of Tamil nadu filed a complaint against appellan before the disciplinary committee of the Bar Council of Tamil nadu was in respect of Suite Number 400/1978 on the file of the City Civil Court at Madras.