Greek Septuagint – Advocatetanmoy Law Library

Greek Septuagint-Γένεσις-Genesis 1

Posted by Advocatetanmoyon April 7, 2020April 7, 2020in CIVIL, Greek Septuagint

Γένεσις-Genesis 1-ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Manoj Pratap Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan-24/06/2022

DEATH PENALTY CONFIRMED-Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed; conviction of the appellant of offences under Sections 363, 365, 376(2)(f), 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 is confirmed; and the sentences awarded to the appellant, including the death sentence for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, are also confirmed.

ZAKIA AHSAN JAFRI VS STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR-24/06/2022

FURTHER INVESTIGATION-No fault can be found with the approach of the SIT in submitting final report , which is backed by firm logic, expositing analytical mind and dealing with all aspects objectively for discarding the allegations regarding larger criminal conspiracy (at the highest level) for causing and precipitating mass violence across the State against the muslim community.

Gopinathan Vs. State of Kerala-24/06/2022

SENTENCE REDUCED- Accused(A1) was charge-sheeted for offence U/S 55(g) and 8(1) read with 8(2) of the Abkari Act and was convicted for the aforestated offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/each

Krishna Rai (D) through LRS. & Ors. Vs. Banaras Hindu University through Registrar & Ors-16/06/2022

Whether principle of estoppel and acquiescence will prevail over statutory service rules prescribing the procedure for promotion of ClassIV employees to ClassIII working in the Banaras Hindu University(BHU)

Swaminathan Kunchu Acharya Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors-09/06/2022

Habeas corpus – the writ petition seeking writ of habeas corpus for production of corpus – Pranav Acharya aged 5 years

Vallal Rck Vs. M/s. Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. and Ors-03/06/2022

Apex Court has, time and again, emphasized the need for minimal judicial interference by the NCLAT and NCLT in the framework of IBC

Mahendra Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Madya Pradesh-03/06/2022

It is a sound and well established rule of law that the court is concerned with the quality and not with the quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or disproving a fact.

Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. A. Balakrishnan & Anr (30/05/2022)

Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016-the application under Section 7 of the IBC was filed within a period of three years from the date on which the Recovery Certificate was issued. As such, the application under Section 7 of the IBC was within limitation.

READ MORE