Showing posts with label The Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Law. Show all posts

Thursday, July 7, 2011

Casey Anthony Weeps As Prosecutor Calls Her A Liar | Casey Anthony Sex In Jail ~ Casey Anthony Prison Sex


ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Casey Anthony briefly wept Sunday as prosecutors told jurors during closing arguments that she murdered her 2-year-old daughter Caylee to reclaim the carefree life she had before the girl was born.

Prosecutors portrayed Anthony as a young mother who killed her daughter because she got in the way of her love life.

"Something needed to be sacrificed, that something was either the life she wanted or the life thrust upon her. She chose to sacrifice her child," prosecutor Jeff Ashton said during his 90-minute argument.

Defense attorney Jose Baez said the prosecutors' case was so weak they tried to portray Anthony as "a lying, no-good slut" and that their forensic evidence was based on a "fantasy." He said Caylee's death was "an accident that snowballed out of control."

Prosecutors contend Caylee was suffocated with duct tape by her mother, who then crafted elaborate lies to mislead investigators and her parents. Defense attorneys countered that the toddler accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool, and that Casey in fact was hiding emotional distress caused by alleged sexual abuse from her father. Her father has denied that claim.

Judge Belvin Perry ruled Sunday morning that there was no evidence of such abuse and that the defense could not allude to it in closing arguments. Jury deliberations are now expected to begin Monday after the prosecution gives its rebuttal arguments.

Baez began his closing argument by telling jurors they have more questions than answers, including the biggest: How did Caylee die? Neither prosecutors nor the defense have offered firm proof of how Caylee died. Read More

Casey Anthony Weeps As Prosecutor Calls Her A Liar | Casey Anthony Sex In Jail ~ Casey Anthony Prison Sex


ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) — Casey Anthony briefly wept Sunday as prosecutors told jurors during closing arguments that she murdered her 2-year-old daughter Caylee to reclaim the carefree life she had before the girl was born.

Prosecutors portrayed Anthony as a young mother who killed her daughter because she got in the way of her love life.

"Something needed to be sacrificed, that something was either the life she wanted or the life thrust upon her. She chose to sacrifice her child," prosecutor Jeff Ashton said during his 90-minute argument.

Defense attorney Jose Baez said the prosecutors' case was so weak they tried to portray Anthony as "a lying, no-good slut" and that their forensic evidence was based on a "fantasy." He said Caylee's death was "an accident that snowballed out of control."

Prosecutors contend Caylee was suffocated with duct tape by her mother, who then crafted elaborate lies to mislead investigators and her parents. Defense attorneys countered that the toddler accidentally drowned in the family swimming pool, and that Casey in fact was hiding emotional distress caused by alleged sexual abuse from her father. Her father has denied that claim.

Judge Belvin Perry ruled Sunday morning that there was no evidence of such abuse and that the defense could not allude to it in closing arguments. Jury deliberations are now expected to begin Monday after the prosecution gives its rebuttal arguments.

Baez began his closing argument by telling jurors they have more questions than answers, including the biggest: How did Caylee die? Neither prosecutors nor the defense have offered firm proof of how Caylee died. Read More

Wednesday, July 6, 2011

The High Court of Delhi (Hindi: दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय, IAST: dillī ucca nyāyālaya) - Chief Justice K. S. Hegde, Justice I. D. Dua, Justice H. R. Khanna and Justice S. K. Kapur


The High Court of Delhi (Hindi: दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय, IAST: dillī ucca nyāyālaya) is the High Court of Delhi. It was established on 31 October 1966. The High Court of Delhi was established with four Judges. They were Chief Justice K. S. Hegde, Justice I. D. Dua, Justice H. R. Khanna and Justice S. K. Kapur.

Former Chief Justices
  • Justice K. S. Hegde (1966 - 1967)
  • Justice I. D. Dua (1967 - 1969)
  • Justice H. R. Khanna (1969 - 1971)
  • Justice Hardayal Hardy (1971 - 1972)
  • Justice Narain Andley (1972 - 1974)
  • Justice T. V. R. Tatachari (1974 - 1978)
  • Justice V. S. Deshpande (1978 - 1980)
  • Justice Prakash Narain (1981 - 1985)
  • Justice Rajinder Sachar (1985 - 1985)
  • Justice D. K. Kapur (1985 - 1986)
  • Justice R. N. Aggarwal (1987 - 1987)
  • Justice Yogeshwar Dayal (1987 - 1988)
  • Justice Y. K. Sabharwal
  • Justice Rabindranath Pyne
  • Justice Milap Chand Jain
  • Justice G. C. Mittal (1991 - 1994)
  • Justice M. Jagannadha Rao (1994 - 1997)
  • Justice Sam Nariman Variava (1999 - 2000)
  • Justice S. B. Sinha (2001 - 2002)
  • Justice B. C. Patel
  • Justice Markandeya Katju

History
On 21 March 1919, the High Court of Judicature at Lahore was established with jurisdiction over the provinces of Punjab and Delhi. This jurisdiction lasted till 1947 when India was partitioned. The High Courts (Punjab) Order, 1947 established a new High Court for the territory of "East Punjab" with effect from 15 August 1947. The India (Adaptation of Existing Indian Laws) Order, 1947 provided that any reference in an existing Indian law to the High Court of Judicature at Lahore be replaced by a reference to the High Court of East Punjab.

The High Court of East Punjab started functioning from Shimla in a building called "Peterhoff". The High Court shifted to Chandigarh in 1954/1955. The High Court of Punjab, as it later came to be called, exercised jurisdiction over Delhi through a Circuit Bench.

In view of the importance of Delhi, its population and other considerations, the Indian Parliament, by enacting the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, established the High Court of Delhi effective from 31st October, 1966.

The High Court of Delhi initially exercised jurisdiction not only over the Union Territory of Delhi, but also Himachal Pradesh. The High Court of Delhi had a Himachal Pradesh Bench at Shimla in a building called Ravenswood. The High Court of Delhi continued to exercise jurisdiction over Himachal Pradesh until the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970 was enforced on 25th January, 1971. From Wikipedia

The High Court of Delhi (Hindi: दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय, IAST: dillī ucca nyāyālaya) - Chief Justice K. S. Hegde, Justice I. D. Dua, Justice H. R. Khanna and Justice S. K. Kapur


The High Court of Delhi (Hindi: दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय, IAST: dillī ucca nyāyālaya) is the High Court of Delhi. It was established on 31 October 1966. The High Court of Delhi was established with four Judges. They were Chief Justice K. S. Hegde, Justice I. D. Dua, Justice H. R. Khanna and Justice S. K. Kapur.

Former Chief Justices
  • Justice K. S. Hegde (1966 - 1967)
  • Justice I. D. Dua (1967 - 1969)
  • Justice H. R. Khanna (1969 - 1971)
  • Justice Hardayal Hardy (1971 - 1972)
  • Justice Narain Andley (1972 - 1974)
  • Justice T. V. R. Tatachari (1974 - 1978)
  • Justice V. S. Deshpande (1978 - 1980)
  • Justice Prakash Narain (1981 - 1985)
  • Justice Rajinder Sachar (1985 - 1985)
  • Justice D. K. Kapur (1985 - 1986)
  • Justice R. N. Aggarwal (1987 - 1987)
  • Justice Yogeshwar Dayal (1987 - 1988)
  • Justice Y. K. Sabharwal
  • Justice Rabindranath Pyne
  • Justice Milap Chand Jain
  • Justice G. C. Mittal (1991 - 1994)
  • Justice M. Jagannadha Rao (1994 - 1997)
  • Justice Sam Nariman Variava (1999 - 2000)
  • Justice S. B. Sinha (2001 - 2002)
  • Justice B. C. Patel
  • Justice Markandeya Katju

History
On 21 March 1919, the High Court of Judicature at Lahore was established with jurisdiction over the provinces of Punjab and Delhi. This jurisdiction lasted till 1947 when India was partitioned. The High Courts (Punjab) Order, 1947 established a new High Court for the territory of "East Punjab" with effect from 15 August 1947. The India (Adaptation of Existing Indian Laws) Order, 1947 provided that any reference in an existing Indian law to the High Court of Judicature at Lahore be replaced by a reference to the High Court of East Punjab.

The High Court of East Punjab started functioning from Shimla in a building called "Peterhoff". The High Court shifted to Chandigarh in 1954/1955. The High Court of Punjab, as it later came to be called, exercised jurisdiction over Delhi through a Circuit Bench.

In view of the importance of Delhi, its population and other considerations, the Indian Parliament, by enacting the Delhi High Court Act, 1966, established the High Court of Delhi effective from 31st October, 1966.

The High Court of Delhi initially exercised jurisdiction not only over the Union Territory of Delhi, but also Himachal Pradesh. The High Court of Delhi had a Himachal Pradesh Bench at Shimla in a building called Ravenswood. The High Court of Delhi continued to exercise jurisdiction over Himachal Pradesh until the State of Himachal Pradesh Act, 1970 was enforced on 25th January, 1971. From Wikipedia

HC rejects Bhanot bail petition | Delhi High Court, Supreme Court Of India, Noida Extension


The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the bail plea of Lalit Bhanot, former secretary general of the Commonwealth Games Organising Committee who has been accused of favouring a Swiss firm in according a contract and thereby allegedly causing a loss of over Rs 90 crore to the government exchequer.

Denying the respite, Justice Mukta Gupta noted that the court could not find favour with Bhanot’s argument that he was entitled to statutory bail because the CBI had failed to file a chargesheet in the case within the stipulated 60-day time following his arrest. The CBI, opposing this contention, had told the court that a fresh penal provision relating to forgery was invoked against Bhanot at a later stage and hence, the stipulated period of submitting the chargesheet was extended to 90 days. A permission from the trial court, CBI said, was obtained regarding the extended time frame.

A close aide of OC chairman Suresh Kalmadi, Bhanot was arrested with director general V K Verma on February 23 for striking a Rs 107-crore deal with Swiss Timing Omega to procure the Timing, Scoring and Result system for the CWG.

In the chargesheet on May 20, CBI named Kalmadi, Bhanot, Verma and eight others, including two companies. Read More

HC rejects Bhanot bail petition | Delhi High Court, Supreme Court Of India, Noida Extension


The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the bail plea of Lalit Bhanot, former secretary general of the Commonwealth Games Organising Committee who has been accused of favouring a Swiss firm in according a contract and thereby allegedly causing a loss of over Rs 90 crore to the government exchequer.

Denying the respite, Justice Mukta Gupta noted that the court could not find favour with Bhanot’s argument that he was entitled to statutory bail because the CBI had failed to file a chargesheet in the case within the stipulated 60-day time following his arrest. The CBI, opposing this contention, had told the court that a fresh penal provision relating to forgery was invoked against Bhanot at a later stage and hence, the stipulated period of submitting the chargesheet was extended to 90 days. A permission from the trial court, CBI said, was obtained regarding the extended time frame.

A close aide of OC chairman Suresh Kalmadi, Bhanot was arrested with director general V K Verma on February 23 for striking a Rs 107-crore deal with Swiss Timing Omega to procure the Timing, Scoring and Result system for the CWG.

In the chargesheet on May 20, CBI named Kalmadi, Bhanot, Verma and eight others, including two companies. Read More

Court raps medical college for easing attendance norms | Delhi High Court, Supreme Court Of India, Noida Extension


The Delhi High Court Wednesday rapped the Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC) here for allowing its students with barely 30 percent attendance to appear in their final examination.

The division bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna directed the college to place before it the register with details on attendance of the students.

The bench also told college officials to file an affidavit explaining how they calculated the students’ attendance percentage.

The court last month took up the matter on its own initiative while referring to a media report on the MAMC allegedly relaxing the norms requiring a minimum attendance of 70 percent by a student to appear in the final examination.

The court sought attendance details of students only after counsel for the MAMC claimed before the bench that only students with 75 percent attendance were allowed to appear in the final examination.

The court also asked the Delhi University, under which the MAMC comes, to file an affidavit clarifying its role over the issue. It also directed the Medical Council of India (MCI) to frame guidelines for all medical colleges.

‘The dean of the MAMC will explain in an affidavit to be filed by the next date whether factually the news item is correct and in exercise of which power and under what rule relaxation, if any, was granted to enable students below minimum attendance to take their final examinations,’ said the bench earlier.

The media report said that to appear in a written test 70 percent minimum classroom attendance was required. It said the biometric attendance system showed that more than half the class did not have the requisite attendance.

‘In the college, the average attendance for boys was about 20 percent, while the girls attended at least 40 percent lectures. The average student attendance was barely 30 percent,’ said the media report. Read More

Court raps medical college for easing attendance norms | Delhi High Court, Supreme Court Of India, Noida Extension


The Delhi High Court Wednesday rapped the Maulana Azad Medical College (MAMC) here for allowing its students with barely 30 percent attendance to appear in their final examination.

The division bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna directed the college to place before it the register with details on attendance of the students.

The bench also told college officials to file an affidavit explaining how they calculated the students’ attendance percentage.

The court last month took up the matter on its own initiative while referring to a media report on the MAMC allegedly relaxing the norms requiring a minimum attendance of 70 percent by a student to appear in the final examination.

The court sought attendance details of students only after counsel for the MAMC claimed before the bench that only students with 75 percent attendance were allowed to appear in the final examination.

The court also asked the Delhi University, under which the MAMC comes, to file an affidavit clarifying its role over the issue. It also directed the Medical Council of India (MCI) to frame guidelines for all medical colleges.

‘The dean of the MAMC will explain in an affidavit to be filed by the next date whether factually the news item is correct and in exercise of which power and under what rule relaxation, if any, was granted to enable students below minimum attendance to take their final examinations,’ said the bench earlier.

The media report said that to appear in a written test 70 percent minimum classroom attendance was required. It said the biometric attendance system showed that more than half the class did not have the requisite attendance.

‘In the college, the average attendance for boys was about 20 percent, while the girls attended at least 40 percent lectures. The average student attendance was barely 30 percent,’ said the media report. Read More

Court notice to government on CBI exemption from RTI | Delhi High Court, Supreme Court Of India, Noida Extension


The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the central government on a public suit filed against the decision to exempt the CBI and the NIA from the purview of the RTI Act, the country's transparency law.

A division bench of chief justice Dipak Mishra and justice Sanjeev Khanna issued notice to the central government, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the home and law ministries and the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT).

"We are putting the matter for final disposal. The next date of hearing will be August 10, therefore the reply should be filed within two weeks from today (Wednesday)," the bench said.

The petitioners, Ajay Kumar Agarwal and Sitab Ali Chaudhary, had challenged the June 9 government notification exempting the CBI, the NIA and the National Intelligence Grid (Natgrid), a proposed centralised data system for quick access to information on terror suspects, from the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

"Hiding information sought under the RTI Act is unconstitutional," the petition said.

"The petition has been filed for the benefit of citizens incapable of accessing the court themselves," Chaudhary said.

Earlier this month, the cabinet approved the CBI's request to be exempted from the RTI Act. The move was condemned by various RTI activists.

On a similar suit, the Madras High Court has asked both the central government and the CBI to explain the exemption from the RTI. Read More

Court notice to government on CBI exemption from RTI | Delhi High Court, Supreme Court Of India, Noida Extension


The Delhi High Court on Wednesday issued notice to the central government on a public suit filed against the decision to exempt the CBI and the NIA from the purview of the RTI Act, the country's transparency law.

A division bench of chief justice Dipak Mishra and justice Sanjeev Khanna issued notice to the central government, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the home and law ministries and the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT).

"We are putting the matter for final disposal. The next date of hearing will be August 10, therefore the reply should be filed within two weeks from today (Wednesday)," the bench said.

The petitioners, Ajay Kumar Agarwal and Sitab Ali Chaudhary, had challenged the June 9 government notification exempting the CBI, the NIA and the National Intelligence Grid (Natgrid), a proposed centralised data system for quick access to information on terror suspects, from the purview of the Right to Information (RTI) Act.

"Hiding information sought under the RTI Act is unconstitutional," the petition said.

"The petition has been filed for the benefit of citizens incapable of accessing the court themselves," Chaudhary said.

Earlier this month, the cabinet approved the CBI's request to be exempted from the RTI Act. The move was condemned by various RTI activists.

On a similar suit, the Madras High Court has asked both the central government and the CBI to explain the exemption from the RTI. Read More

Delhi High Court, Supreme Court Of India, Noida Extension


Delhi HC issues notice to city labour commissioner
The Delhi High Court today issued notice to the city government's labour commissioner on a petition alleging that the workers' welfare board is virtually non-functional. A division bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna directed the labour commissioner to appear before it on July 27. 

The court was hearing a PIL filed by a construction workers' union, alleging that workers at various sites were not getting minimum wage by the contractors and the principal employers like DMRC, MCD, DDA, PWD and DIAL have failed to take any action against them for violating the Building And Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act and also Minimum Wages Act. Earlier, the court has directed the principal employers to collect the name and addresses of the workers and register them so that they could avail the benefits including the medical facilities prescribed under the law. Read More

Delhi High Court, Supreme Court Of India, Noida Extension


Delhi HC issues notice to city labour commissioner
The Delhi High Court today issued notice to the city government's labour commissioner on a petition alleging that the workers' welfare board is virtually non-functional. A division bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Sanjiv Khanna directed the labour commissioner to appear before it on July 27. 

The court was hearing a PIL filed by a construction workers' union, alleging that workers at various sites were not getting minimum wage by the contractors and the principal employers like DMRC, MCD, DDA, PWD and DIAL have failed to take any action against them for violating the Building And Other Construction Workers' Welfare Cess Act and also Minimum Wages Act. Earlier, the court has directed the principal employers to collect the name and addresses of the workers and register them so that they could avail the benefits including the medical facilities prescribed under the law. Read More