Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court: Rajnish Bhatnagar, J., dismissed a matter revolving around the dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi: Kratika Chaturvedi, DJS, while addressing a matter revolving around Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., addressed whether the magnitude of offence can be the only criterion for granting bail and further
Supreme Court: The bench of MR Shah and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that merely because some of the persons who might
“A few bits here and a few bits there on which prosecution relies, cannot be held to be adequate for connecting the accused with the commission of crime of criminal conspiracy.”
Supreme Court: Explaining the principles of sentencing policy, the 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and Surya Kant* and AS Bopanna, JJ
Supreme Court: In the case where two different criminal appeals were being heard against two sets of accused, on account of one
“Although furlough can be claimed without a reason, the prisoner does not have an absolute legal right to claim furlough.”
In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the bench of S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A. Varadarajan and Sabyasachi
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, JJ has lucidly laid down the principles governing
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*, Vikram Nath and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that a Preliminary Enquiry is
‘Spare the rod and spoil the child’ an old saying may have lost its relevance in present days and Corporal punishment to the child is not recognised by law but that does not mean that a teacher or school authorities have to shut their eyes to any indiscipline act of a student.
Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course.
Supreme Court: In a case where a man was allegedly murdered by his wife and colleague, the bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud*
The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives.
Karnataka High Court: M. Nagaprasanna J. allowed the criminal petition and quashed the impugned order dated 30-07-2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge,
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. took the liberty of disagreeing with one of the
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Division Bench of Dhiraj Singh Thakur and Puneet Gupta, JJ., dismissed the application seeking suspension of
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Atul Sreedharan, J., allowed a bail application of the applicant who was charged for offences under sections 420,467,468,471,472,474
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud* and M. R. Shah, JJ., pronounced an important judgment which came out