Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court granted interim protection to IRCTC, holding that tariff-linked revision of licence fee raises a prima facie case and warrants a stay on the arbitral findings impacting IRCTC’s policy framework.
Continue reading
In a procedural clarification, the Bombay High Court directed corrections to its earlier order and reiterated that the defamation suit, already deferred until 2046, must be read together with the corrected order.
Continue reading
The Court observed that the conduct of the accused, being a stranger, approaching the victim at night while she was returning from a common washroom, and catching hold of her hand without her consent, would certainly amount to use of criminal force.
Continue reading
The Court observed that Criminal liability is not a heritable estate. The “legal fiction” created under Section 138 is restricted to the “drawer” of the instrument.
Continue reading
“As per Section 87, RP Act, any provision of CPC that is inconsistent with Section 82, RP Act, which specifies the persons to be impleaded in an election petition, cannot be invoked to implead a person who is otherwise not liable to be joined as a respondent under Section 82, RP Act.”
Continue reading
Since the term of the Assembly had already expired and fresh elections w held in 2025, the election petition had become infructuous.
Continue reading
The Court rejected the contention that such collection was being made by the petitioner for many years and had translated into a customary right, which should be protected.
Continue reading
“The huge pendency in the High Court results in these appeals being disposed of after at least 8 to 10 years from the date of filing, and this again results in severe prejudice to the claimants.”
Continue reading
In a rare order, the Bombay High Court directed that an ego-driven defamation suit be kept off the board until 2046, despite seniority claim by 90-year-old-litigant.
Continue reading
The Court clarified that at the present stage it was not conducting a final hearing, but only determining whether the petitioner should be permitted to sit for the examination.
Continue reading
The Court noted that the cumulative financial impact, as reflected in the investigation, indicated that students were compelled to incur an additional expenditure of approximately Rs 53 lakhs which could not be brushed aside as incidental or insignificant.
Continue reading
“The distinguishing factor between the offence of cheating and any other civil dispute lies in the presence or absence of mens rea at the inception of the transaction. To constitute the offence of cheating, it must be shown that the accused had a dishonest or fraudulent intention from the very beginning.”
Continue reading
The Court clarified that Section 104(1-A), IR Code starts with a non-obstante clause, thereby enabling it to operate even if there is any contrary or inconsistent provision contained in the same statute.
Continue reading
“The jurisprudential basis for the State being the prosecuting agency in criminal offences is to prevent a criminal prosecution from descending into an exercise in vengeance, where the victim goes baying-for-the-blood of the offender; and to maintain objectivity, neutrality, fairness and a sense of proportion in prosecution of an offender.”
Continue reading
The State submitted that since the corpus is in lawful custody of the State in pursuance of a judicial order, the present habeas corpus petition is not maintainable.
Continue reading
“The members of the transgender community continue to face entrenched social stigma, resulting in deprivation of basic dignity and meaningful livelihood opportunities.”
Continue reading
The Court opined that it was not appropriate for the defendants to carry out any campaign, whether defamatory or otherwise, in Plaintiff 3’s name.
Continue reading
“Since there were contrary claims raised by the parties, unless the respondents established their title through competent civil court, they were not entitled to pass the eviction order exercising the powers conferred under the 1971 Act, which was summary in nature, thereby rendering the same without jurisdiction.”
Continue reading
“The Inquiry Report also recorded the reply of the petitioner and the statement of the complainant that she was threatened with dire consequences by the instigator and forced to sign the complaint letter against the petitioner.”
Continue reading
The Court directed that the petitioner’s husband action and his consent in opting for IVF treatment be treated to be sufficient compliance for the purposes of Section 22, ART Act.
Continue reading