CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST LAW NEWS
1. The Bombay High Court in the case of Nitin Gopinath Bhailume and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra recently allowed two prisoners sentenced to death in 2017 for raping and murdering a young girl, to continue their education through open universities during incarceration. Full Story
2. In the case of Nilima Bose vs the State of Assam, the Gauhati High Court ordered the release of a 22-year-old youth who spent six years in a detention centre after he was accused of illegally entering India from Bangladesh after the boy’s mother moved the High Court claiming that her son, an Indian, was suffering from schizophrenia and had run away from home. Full Story
3. In the case of Dina Ramliani Ralte vs Shenpenn Khymsar & Anr, the Delhi Court has prima facie found a case of copyright infringement in a legal battle over the works of late Parikrama band member and musician Sonam Sherpa allegedly being used in a movie without consent. Full Story
1. In the case of Tarun Preet Singh vs Union of India and Anr, twenty-five years after three men were shot at by Delhi Police in Connaught Place, the Delhi High Court has directed the Central government to pay a compensation of ₹15 lakh plus 8% interest per annum to the sole survivor of the encounter. Full Story
2. In the case of Vijay Babu vs the State of Kerala, Malayalam actor-producer Vijay Babu has moved the Kerala High Court seeking anticipatory bail in a rape case that was registered against him after an actress accused him of sexually exploiting her. Full Story
3. In the case of Jaanki Yadav vs Gorakhnath Yadav, the Chhattisgarh High Court, while denying maintenance to a wife and daughter, held that the law presumes in favour of marriage and is against concubinage. Full Story
4. In the case of Vipul vs the State of Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday held that the mere involvement of an accused in other cases cannot be the sole basis to deny bail to a person and keep him confined in perpetuity. Full Story
1. In the case of Zenobia Poonwalla vs Rustom Ginwalla & Ors, Justice GS Kulkarni of the Bombay High Court recently forbade a lawyer from appearing before him in any matter in the future, citing his allegedly arrogant behaviour within the courtroom. Full Story
2. In the case of Navneet Rana vs the State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court recently observed that threatening to recite religious verses either at someone else’s personal residence or at public places breaches the personal liberty of others. Full Story
3. In the case of Nawab Malik vs Enforcement Directorate & Ors, Maharashtra Cabinet minister Nawab Malik has approached the Special Court under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) seeking medical bail and permission to conduct surgery in a private hospital in Mumbai. Full Story
4. In the case of Ranbir Singh vs SK Roy, Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India & Anr, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that the Life Insurance Corporation of India (LIC), being a statutory body, is bound by the mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Full Story
1. In the case of Kanishka Pandey vs Union of India, the Supreme Court on Monday directed the Central and State governments to respond to the suggestions made by the Amicus Curiae for declaring the right to physical activity and literacy as a fundamental right. Full Story
2. In the case of Ashwini Upadhyay vs Union of India and Ors, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought the response of the Central government on a public interest litigation (PIL) petition seeking integration of Allopathy, Ayurveda, Yoga, Naturopathy, Unani and other forms of medicine systems in a holistic, integrated common syllabus for all medical colleges. Full Story
3. In the case of Indra Pasricha vs Deepika Chauhan & Ors, the Delhi High Court on Tuesday held a party in civil contempt, observing that disobedience of court orders, if permitted, will result in striking at the root of the rule of law on which our system of governance is based. Full Story
4. In the case of CBI vs Aakar Patel, the Delhi High Court’s Justice Talwant Singh on Wednesday recused from hearing a petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) against a Special Court order setting aside the Look Out Circular (LOC) issued by CBI against former Amnesty International India head Aakar Patel. Full Story
1. In the case of Nitin Hundiwala vs Union of India, the Bombay High Court earlier this month held that a calculated risk of boarding an overcrowded local train will not amount to a “criminal act” under section 124A of the Railways Act of 1989. Full Story
2. In the case of Somvir vs the State of Haryana, the Punjab & Haryana High Court last week refused to grant custody of a 3-year-old child to her father on the ground that he was accused of causing the wife’s dowry death. Full Story
3. In the case of Nasima vs the State of UP, the Supreme Court has transferred the investigation into the Unnao custodial death case to Lucknow Police after it noted that the probe conducted by Unnao (Uttar Pradesh) police prima facie seemed unfair. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court took exception to the stand of the Uttarakhand government that it cannot stop Dharam Sansad events and cannot anticipate that hate speech might be delivered at such gatherings. Full Story
1. In the case of Saurabh Bharadwaj vs Delhi Police, Through Its Commissioner and Anr, the Delhi High Court on Monday pulled up the Delhi Police for its failure to prevent the vandalism by Bharatiya Janata Yuva Morcha (BJYM) workers outside the residence of Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal. Full Story
2. In the case of Vaishali (Minor) (Through Next Friend Mrs Sita Devi) vs Union of India, the Supreme Court on Monday stopped the demolition of around 200 Jhuggis at Delhi’s Sarojini Nagar and asked the Central government to not take any coercive action till May 2. Full Story
3. Member of Parliament Naveent Rana and her husband, independent Member of Legislative Assembly Ravi Rana, have approached Bombay High Court seeking quashing of case slapped against them for assault of public servant after they threatened to recite Hanuman Chalisa outside Maharashtra Chief Minister (CM) Uddhav Thackeray’s private residence. Full Story
4. In the case of Madras Bar Association vs Union of India, Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana said on Monday that he is considering setting up a special bench to hear cases relating to tribunals, their functioning and appointments. Full Story
1. In the case of Rinku Sharma vs the State of MP, the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court recently granted bail to an accused in an attempt to murder case on the condition that he plants 10 saplings and care for them. Full Story
2. In the case of Ganesh Shankar Pilane vs the State of Maharashtra & Ors, the Bombay High Court recently quashed a first information report (FIR) against a man booked for rape and sexual assault against a minor after she granted her consent to quash the criminal proceedings claiming she wanted to focus on her academic career. Full Story
3. In the case of Rajkumar vs the State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a person accused of human trafficking since the alleged victims had not made an allegation of exploitation in their statements. Full Story
4. In the case of the State of Maharashtra vs Rajani Vijay Angre & Ors, a magistrate court in Mumbai’s Kurla recently acquitted five women accused of unlawfully assembling to protest against the shortage in water supply in their neighbourhood. Full Story
1. In Ankita Mishra vs the State of UP, the Allahabad High Court has ordered the Uttar Pradesh police to take action on a priority basis in a matter concerning a girl’s abduction from the chamber of a lawyer. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court initiated a suo motu case to examine and institutionalise the process involved in the collection of data and information to decide the award of sentence in death penalty cases. A three-judge bench of Justices UU Lalit, S Ravindra Bhat and PS Narasimha suggested that the top court would lay down guidelines to be followed by courts across India while considering cases involving the award of death penalty. Full Story
3. In the case of Rajesh Kunte vs Rahul Gandhi, a Bhiwandi court this week imposed a fine of ₹1,000 against Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh leader Rajesh Kunte for seeking adjournment in the defamation proceedings initiated against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. Full Story
4. In the case of Hyundai Motor India Limited vs Shailendra Bhatnagar, the Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the compensation awarded to a consumer who suffered injuries due to the non-deployment of airbags of his Hyundai Creta car during a collision as a consequence of which he suffered head, chest and dental injuries. Full Story
1. In the case of Vasanth Aditya J vs the State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court recently declined to quash criminal proceedings against an advocate accused of assaulting and harassing an intern who was working at a law firm. Full Story
2. In the case of Britannia Industries Private Limited vs Parle Biscuits Pvt Ltd and Anr, the Delhi High Court has directed Parle Biscuits to modify two of its advertisements by blurring the image of the cookies used in the ads since they resemble Britannia’s Good Day biscuits. Full Story
3. In the case of Multiplex Association of India vs the State of Andhra, the Andhra Pradesh High Court passed an interim order in favour of the Multiplex Association of India in a plea challenging the government’s decision to include service charges for online bookings in movie theatres to the overall price for admission. Full Story
4. In the case of Jamiat Ulama I Hind vs North Delhi Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court on Thursday said that it would take a serious view of the apparent disobedience of its order to maintain the status quo in relation to the Jahangirpuri demolition drive that was slated to be carried out by the North Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC). Full Story
1. In the case of Rinky Rani vs Daljit Kumar, the Punjab & Haryana High Court recently refused to entertain a transfer petition filed by the wife in a matrimonial dispute, stating that the plea was nothing but sweet revenge by her to prevent the husband from seeking his rights. Full Story
2. While hearing the case of Venkatesh @ Chandra vs the State of Karnataka, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held that any debate or discussion on a public platform such as a television channel touching on criminal cases which are in the domain of courts would amount to direct interference in the administration of criminal justice. Full Story
3. In the case of Rohit Madan vs Union of India and Ors, the Delhi High Court has sought a status report from the central government on the steps it has taken to meet its international obligations and commitments on the issue of climate change. Full Story
4. The Kerala High Court, while hearing the case of TN Suraj vs the State of Kerala, observed that intense media scrutiny on cases and publishing of leaked information and half-truths about ongoing trials impede the faith of the public in the justice delivery system. Full Story
1. The issue of pendency of cases came up for discussion during the hearing of a case relating to the ban on manufacturer and use of firecrackers across India. While answering the issue, Justice Shah stated, “One of the reasons for pendency is letter for adjournments. Everyday, 5 to 6 matters in criminal matters adjournments letters are given, where personal difficulty is cited”. Full Story
2. In the case of Micropark Logistics Pvt Ltd vs the State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Bombay High Court recently quashed all blacklisting orders issued by the Regional Transport Office (RTO) against several Bharat Stage-IV (BS-IV) compliant vehicles which were sold as second-hand sales after the Supreme Court mandated deadline of March 31, 2020. Full Story
3. In the case of Joseph vs the State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court declined to interfere with the inter-faith relationship between one Joisna Mary Joseph and Shejin, which had sparked “love jihad” allegations in the State. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court, in the case of Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors vs Sundaresh Bhatt & Ors, held that the salary wages of employees during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) are to be treated as costs for asset distribution purposes under the IBC. Full Story
1. In the case of Jagjeet Singh vs Ashish Mishra, a victim of a crime cannot be asked to wait till the trial begins to assert his/her right to participate in criminal proceedings against the accused, the Supreme Court observed on Monday while cancelling the bail granted to Ashish Mishra in the Lakhimpur Kheri violence case. Full Story
2. In the case of Child Marriage Prohibition Committee and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra & Ors, Bombay High Court, on observing that there were hardly any first information reports (FIRs) registered against prevailing child marriages, asked the Maharashtra government to explain the steps it has taken to prohibit the practice. Full Story
3. The Delhi High Court, while hearing the case of George Abraham vs Union of India and Ors, sought the response of the Central government, Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi (IIT Delhi) on a plea seeking constitution of a committee to formulate guidelines so that visually impaired persons can access online and technology-based banking services. Full Story
4. A public interest litigation (PIL) petition has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking a probe by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the recent communal violence at Delhi’s Jahangirpuri and in seven other States during Ram Navami. Full Story
1. In the case of Jean George & Anr vs Serum Institute of India & Ors, parents of a 19-year-old girl who passed away allegedly due to a rare-immunogenic response to the Covishield vaccine have moved the Kerala High Court seeking compensation of ₹10 crores. Full Story
2. In the case of Soho Pub and Grill vs State of Karnataka and Ors, the Karnataka High Court recently directed the police not to harass a restaurant for having a hookah bar that allows customers to smoke hookah. Full Story
3. The Bombay High Court suggested in the case of Choice Developers vs Pantnagar Pearl CHS Ltd. & Ors, while ordering the non-cooperating members to vacate their residential units for the redevelopment of the building that minority members of a co-operative society opposing redevelopment of the society building should be held accountable for the delay caused. Full Story
4. While ordering a woman to grant access of her children to her estranged husband for a period of four days, the Bombay High Court observed that the children have the right to love and affection of both parents as well as grandparents. Full Story
1. While hearing the case of Madan Lal vs New Delhi Municipal Council and Another, the Supreme Court recently observed that hawkers cannot claim the right to keep their goods and wares overnight at the place where they are hawking. Full Story
2. In the case of Sh Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs Smt Deepika Sharma, the Delhi High Court has held that one or occasional acts of adultery committed in isolation do not amount to “living in adultery” and, therefore, do not disentitle (deprive) a woman from maintenance after divorce! Full Story
3. In the case of Giri vs the State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court at Aurangabad last week ordered a local Zilla Parishad to consider the application filed by a widow seeking a compassionate appointment after she gave an undertaking by way of an affidavit that she will take proper care of her aged mother-in-law. Full Story
4. In the case of Sushama Arun Patil vs the State of Maharashtra & Ors, the Bombay High Court last week imposed costs of ₹25,000 on a litigant and directed the same to be deposited with the prison at Kalamba in Kolhapur to purchase books for its library. Full Story
1. In the case of Master Arjun Choudhary vs Chairman, the Rajasthan High Court on Wednesday said that a lawyer cannot insist on the recusal of a judge or transfer of a case to another bench. The single-judge said that the conduct of the counsel was highly objectionable and contemptuous. Full Story
2. While Supreme Court was hearing the case of Quran Ali vs Union of India, the Delhi Police has told the court that there were no instances of hate speech at the Delhi Dharam Sansad since “no specific words against any particular community was used.” Full Story
3. In the case of Kamatchi vs Lakshmi Narayanan, the Supreme Court on Wednesday held that an application under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act of 2005 need not be filed within a period of one year of the alleged acts of domestic violence. Full Story
4. In the case of Jahir Hak vs the State of Rajasthan, the Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to a person accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) after noting that the person has been in custody for almost 8 years and the prosecution has examined only 6 out of the 109 witnesses. Full Story
1. In the case of Kirit Somaiya vs the State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court granted interim relief to Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Kirit Somaiya in connection with a case of misappropriation of funds registered by the Mumbai Police. Full Story
2. While hearing the case of Qurban Ali and Another vs Union of India and Others, the Supreme Court asked the Uttarakhand government to file a status report in connection with the alleged hate speech targeting the Muslim community delivered at the Haridwar Dharam Sansad last year. Full Story
3. In the case of Rahamathulla vs the State of Tamil Nadu and Ors, a Chennai resident has moved the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the case registered against him in Karnataka for allegedly threatening the judges of the Karnataka High Court who had delivered the Hijab verdict. Full Story
4. While hearing the case of Sanju Tanti vs the State of Tripura, the Tripura High Court held that touching the hands of a minor without any intention to molest will not attract charges of sexual assault under section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act! Full Story
1. In the case of Noor Paul vs Union of India, the Punjab & Haryana High Court recently held that not supplying a copy of a Look Out Circular (LOC) to the concerned person at the airport is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. Full Story
2. In the case of Vitthal Chaudhari vs the State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court recently held that for establishing an offence of abetment of suicide under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, there should be direct or indirect evidence to show that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit the act and a mere allegation of harassment won’t amount to abetment of suicide. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court heard a plea by a former student challenging the mandatory module on colour editing and him being debarred for not clearing the same on account of his colour blindness. Therefore, the Court asked the Film & Television Institute of India (FTII) to ensure that its curricula and admissions are open to all, including the specially-abled candidates and those who are colour blind. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court, in the case of Central Council for Indian Medicine vs Karnataka Ayurveda Medical College, held that under the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, no medical college can open a new course, or postgraduate course, or course of study or training without the prior approval of the Central government. Full Story
1. In the case of Lasya Kahli vs Union of India, the Passport Rules of 1980 requiring a transgender person to produce certificates of gender reassignment surgery for issuance of passport with declared sex is prima facie violative of Article 21, the Delhi High Court remarked on Monday. Full Story
2. Vijay Saini, who had been sentenced to life by trial court for the murder of a 21-year-old, moved the High Court challenging the trial court judgment. The Delhi High Court denied bail and said that there should be zero tolerance for anybody who intimidates a girl, woman or child and that society should ensure that women do not have to fear when they step out of their homes. Full Story
3. In the case of Mallada K Sri Ram vs State of Telangana and Others, it is said that the government cannot exercise preventive detention powers merely because the concerned person has been implicated in a criminal proceeding, the Supreme Court recently observed while setting aside a preventive detention order. Full Story
4. While a Bench led by the CJI was hearing a batch of petitions seeking lifting of the ban on mining and export of iron ore in Karnataka, the Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana remarked that official replies should be filed and submitted before the court first before it is sent to media houses and journalists. Full Story
1. Chief Justice of India (CJI) NV Ramana on Saturday highlighted the importance of mediation as a mode of resolving disputes which could also go a long way in saving judicial time and resources. To support his point, CJI recounted an episode from Mahabharata when Lord Krishna attempted mediation in a bid to prevent the Kurukshetra war. Full Story
2. In the case of Annie Gurmeher Kaur vs University of Delhi and Anr, the Delhi High Court has quashed the policy of the University of Delhi (DU), which provided that the result of revaluation will not be taken into consideration for the award of gold medals and prizes. Full Story
3. In Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of India and Another, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has told the Supreme Court that it has no power to de-register political parties that promise and distribute freebies to voters before and after elections. Full Story
4. In the case of Iqbal Ahmed vs CBI, SCB, the Karnataka High Court recently held that it is not necessary for a first information report (FIR) to be registered immediately after receiving information about a cognizable offence for the investigation to be valid. Full Story
1. In the case of Noel Harper vs Union of India, the Supreme Court on Friday upheld the constitutional validity of the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Amendment Act, 2020 (FRCA Amendment Act), which imposed restrictions on the way foreign contributions are handled by organisations based in India. Full Story
2. In the case of Rohan Pradeep Shinde vs the State of Maharashtra, a Thane court denied anticipatory bail to a 32-year-old Navi Mumbai man who allegedly misled his wife by concealing his homosexuality from her. Full Story
3. The Delhi High Court, in the case of Shailendra Kumar Yadav vs State, has held that sexual relations established on a genuine promise of marriage that later failed to fructify due to external circumstances is not rape. Justice Subramonium Prasad further added that there is a difference between a false promise of marriage and the breach of a promise to marry. Full Story
4. In the case of Anil Deshmukh vs Enforcement Directorate & Ors., the Bombay High Court on Friday remarked that it would be unfair to hear new cases when cases of prisoners languishing in jails for years together are pending before it. Full Story
1. The Delhi High Court granted interim protection from arrest and coercive action to Spicejet promoter Ajay Singh in a case of alleged fraud in the transfer of shares of the airlines to certain individuals. Full Story
2. In the case of Ramesh Razdan vs the State of Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court requested the Haryana government to look into the plight of Kashmiri Pandits who lost their homes at the hands of terrorists in Jammu & Kashmir in the year 1990-91. Full Story
3. The Bombay High Court recently asked the Central government and the Maharashtra government to resolve their differences outside the court and decide whether or not the car shed for the Mumbai Metro needs to be shifted from the city’s Kanjurmarg area to Aarey Colony, part of which was declared a forest last year. Full Story
4. In the case of Karnataka State Legal Services Authority vs the State of Karnataka, the Karnataka High Court directed that the salary of the Principal Secretary in the Health and Family Welfare (Medical Education) Department of the state be withheld until an MRI machine is installed and made operational at the Dharwad Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (DIMHANS). Full Story
1. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs Atmaram Lakhara, the Rajasthan High Court recently commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment of four men of a family convicted for killing four persons, including a minor, over a land dispute. Full Story
2. In the case of Aman Vachar vs Union of India, an order of the central government which mandated judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts to seek political clearance for their private visits abroad was struck down by the Delhi High Court. Full Story
3. In the State of Maharashtra vs Sachin Suresh Wadekar, a special court in Mumbai convicted and sentenced a 37-year-old man to 25 years in jail for offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) after he was found guilty of raping his adolescent daughter multiple times. Full Story
4. The Kerala High Court, in the case of Saumya MS vs the State of Kerala & Ors, held that a person who had earlier enrolled as an advocate and later suspended legal practice to serve as a government employee cannot be treated as a “member of the Bar”. Full Story
1. In the case of Ramachandran @ Chandran vs the State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court recently held that sex on a promise to marry will amount to rape only if it violates the decisional autonomy of the victim. Moreover, lack of consent in a rape case cannot be presumed merely because a man entered into marriage with another woman after engaging in a sexual act with the victim. Full Story
2. In the case of Delhi Rozi-Roti Adhikar Abhiyan vs Union of India & Ors, the Delhi High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the mandatory requirement of Aadhaar to avail food grains under the National Food Security Act (NFSA). Full Story
3. The Madras High Court, in the case of Vasanthakumar vs Union of India, declared section 32(2)(a) of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988 as unconstitutional, which made a member of the Indian Legal Service eligible for appointment as a judicial member in the appellate tribunal under the Act. Full Story
4. The Bombay High Court finally agreed to hear a petition seeking a declaration that the collection of fines from citizens for not wearing masks by ‘clean-up marshals’ during COVID-19 lockdowns in Mumbai was illegal. Full Story
1. During the case of Pooja Agarwal vs the State of Assam and Anr, the Gauhati High Court upheld the minimum age requirement for the appointment of District Judges in the State. A Bench of Chief Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice Soumitra Saikia held that Rule 7 of the Assam Judicial Service Rules of 2003 providing for appointees to grade-1 judicial officers in the state to be at least 35 years of age is not arbitrary. Full Story
2. In the case of Bombay Lawyers Association vs the Registrar General, Supreme Court of India & Ors, the Bombay High Court refused to urgently list a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking a permanent mechanism to fill up vacancies of judges in the High Court. Full Story
3. In the case of Hanuman Anandrao Pendam vs State of Maharashtra and Ors., the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court recently sentenced Nagpur Central Prison’s Superintendent, Anupkumar Kumre, to seven days in jail for contempt of court after finding that he had selectively denied prisoners emergency parole during the COVID-19 pandemic. Full Story
4. In the case of State vs Surender Soni & Ors., the court observed that It would be sheer wastage of judicial time if charges were to be framed against three accused in a Delhi Riots case while discharging them. Full Story
1. In the case of Shehjada Hanifbhai Patel vs Bilkis, the Gujarat High Court recently refused to interfere with a Family Court’s order where an application by the petitioner-father for interim custody of his children aged 17 and 12 years was rejected. Full Story
2. Activist Medha Patkar has filed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition before the Bombay High Court seeking directions to the Maharashtra government to urgently fill up the vacancies in the State Police Complaints Authority (SPCA) and to provide adequate and timely release of funds and necessary facilities including a website for SPCA. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court, in the case of Municipal Committee, Barwala, District Hissar, Haryana Through its Secretary/President vs Jai Narayan and Company and Another, recently reiterated that the highest bidder in an auction does not have any legal and equitable right to claim the auctioned property unless the same is approved by the state government or any other authority. Full Story
4. In the case of Leelamma Eapen vs the District Magistrate, Kottayam, the Kerala High Court recently held that Maintenance Tribunals under the Senior Citizens Act have the jurisdiction to issue directions to the children or relatives of senior citizens to not deprive them of their earnings. Full Story
1. In the case of Bhagyashri Jaiswal vs Jagdish Sajjanlal Jaiswal & Anr., the Bombay High Court recently declined to interfere with a Nanded court’s orders directing a school teacher to pay interim maintenance to her ex-husband, who claimed to have no sources of income. Full Story
2. In the case of Union of India, MCA vs Delhi Gymkhana Club, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on Friday allowed the Central government’s plea to take over the affairs of the Delhi Gymkhana Club, appointing a 15-member committee to manage its affairs. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court of India has officially announced that hearings before it will be via physical mode from April 4, Monday. Furthermore, the Court has decided to provide an option to litigants and lawyers to appear virtually for their cases on miscellaneous days, i.e. Mondays and Fridays. Full Story
4. In the case of Ajay Singh vs State, the Delhi court has dismissed the anticipatory bail application of SpiceJet promoter Ajay Singh in relation to an alleged cheating case. Full Story
- March 2022 Law News
- February 2022 Law News
- January 2022 Law News
- December 2021 Law News
- November 2021 Law News
- October 2021 Law News
- September 2021 Law News
- August 2021 Law News
- July 2021 Law News
- June 2021 Law News
- May 2021 Law News
- April 2021 Law News
- March 2021 Law News
- February 2021 Law News
- January 2021 Law News
- December 2020 Law News
- Article 334A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
- Article 332A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
- Article 330A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
