Start a new topic
Started by Anonymous User at 9:35 a.m. on 16 May 13
Please urgently remove the link provided as it has lot of incorrect and misleading information. If its not done we will be forced to take legal actions.
Started by Anonymous User at 3:29 p.m. on 07 May 13
I am seeing many people's lives have been impacted by this site putting their personal info online. In no other country this is tolerated.
In US, you can browse judgments but only if you go to the court website, not in a google search.
Please write to google to block search results from this website to be appearing. If they are not complying, a class action lawsuit against google and this web site is contemplated.
Started by Satya Narayana Patodiya at 12:14 p.m. on 07 May 13
The Investigating Officer in his Investigation Report called F.R. I and the Supervisory authority S.P. CBI in his Report have mentioned the Income of the accused as Rs. 80 lacs. But, while submitting the Challan the income was mentioned only Rs. 50 lcas. Thus, the CBI intentionally increased the D.A. AMOUNT by Rs. 30 lacs.
On demanding under R.T.I. ACT, the copy of the Investigation Report, CBI has refused to supply under Section 8 of the RTI ACT.
Please inform as to how these reports can be obtained from CBI
Started by Gyan Prakash at 12:44 p.m. on 30 April 13
I have filed W.P. 529 of 2013(PIL) in M.P.High Court Principal Bench Jabalpur for compliance of section 24(1) and 25-A of Cr.P.C. The MP Govt. appointed Public Prosecutor in consultation with the High Court. On 18/4/2013 Hon'ble Court has passed order " We direct the State Govt. to immediately withdraw the person, who has been directed to take care of the post of Director of Prosecution and we also restrain such person to work as Director of Prosecution. However, the State Govt. shall make immediate steps for appintment of Director of Prosecution preferably within one week from today in accordance with section 25-A of Cr.P.C.
Case be listed for hearing on 6/5/2013.
Started by Anonymous User at 6:47 p.m. on 25 April 13
PLEASE REMOVE THE CONTENT ENCLOSED IN THE LINK www.indiankanoon.org/doc/673602/ IMMEDIATELY.m
Started by kkrao at 6:31 p.m. on 11 April 13
I was allotted a site in the co-operative housing society in the MIG category. That is to say 267 sq yds. but the actual site is measuring 440 sq Yds. But boundaries are described with the neighboring plot numbers only. There is no mention of measurements any where. The site is under my possession and use since 28 years.Now I want the deed to be rectified to the actual measurements. How can I get this done?
any legal opinion on this?
Started by devashish at 8:45 p.m. on 10 April 13
I want to know how the relatives are come out from this case because they are not beneficiary and only attend the ring ceremony. please give the specific detail about supreme court order against this kind of acts or sections. We want to move to high court with an application.
Started by Anonymous User at 11:30 p.m. on 06 April 13
This judgment :- Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union (Regd.), Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1981 SC 344 ; erroneously links to :- Fertilizer Corporation Of India ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 19 February, 1996
Equivalent citations: 1996 SCC (3) 325, JT 1996 (2) 410. I found the 1981 judgment cited on the judgment page of:- Allahabad High Court
Rajeev Kumar Son Of Lakshman ... vs The State Of U.P. Through ... on 15 December, 2005
Started by RightInformer.com at 6:58 a.m. on 28 March 13
Mistake pointed out for rectification please.
Thanks for your immense help thrugh your wonderful site to millions including us.
Please refer http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/12148249/. At the beginning it is mentioned:- Bench: T.S. Thakur, Fakkir Mohamed Kalifulla. But at the end it is mentioned G.S. SINGHVI, J. and SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J" [When the Supreme Court site was accessed through Judis.nic.in this mistake was confirmed] _ P. Jacob, Principal Educator, RIIF, Chennai. www.RightInformer.com / www.RightInformer.org
Started by sgshah at 8:58 a.m. on 15 March 13
It seems that several judgments are not included in the database, as against that several formal orders like issuance of notice or rule are available. If possible identify only judgments and include all the judgments. You are doing immense help to the public at large.