- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
DSK advocates for Salman Khan over hit and run acquittal in SC
On 5 July, the Supreme Court had agreed to heed the petition filed by Maharashtra government, challenging the exoneration of the bollywood film star Salman Khan in a 2002 hit-and-run case.A bench comprising Justices JS Khehar and Arun Mishra declined to fast-track the hearing in the case. Mr Khan’s lawyer, DSK Legal Partner Anand Desai said, "Khan had wanted the Supreme Court to hear the...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
On 5 July, the Supreme Court had agreed to heed the petition filed by Maharashtra government, challenging the exoneration of the bollywood film star Salman Khan in a 2002 hit-and-run case.
A bench comprising Justices JS Khehar and Arun Mishra declined to fast-track the hearing in the case. Mr Khan’s lawyer, DSK Legal Partner Anand Desai said, "Khan had wanted the Supreme Court to hear the 2002 hit-and-run case against him on merit".
Mr Desai added, "The honourable Supreme Court had on the last date asked us whether Salman would consent to the Supreme Court hearing the case on merits. Today we informed the honourable Supreme Court that we had taken instructions from our client Salman Khan and the matter should be heard on merits." "Accordingly, leave is granted and the final hearing will take place in due course".