Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court underscored the importance of upholding procedural fairness and constitutional principles in legislative proceedings while acknowledging the authority of the House to maintain discipline and order within its precincts.
“Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 raises a statutory presumption that any person who attempts to commit suicide shall be presumed to have severe stress and shall not be tried and punished under the Penal Code, 1860.”
“To nurture the matrimonial bond, it is of high significance that parties live together and avoid leaving each other’s company frequently.”
“Since defendants are using different marks on outer packaging of the impugned products and identical roundel devices on the individual cigarette sticks, the Local Commissioner is permitted to open cigarette packs to inspect the logos/devices on the individual cigarette sticks.”
Howsoever abysmal the differences maybe between the spouses, but in no realm can the act of the aggrieved spouse of igniting animosity and hostility in the minor child in an attempt to use the child as a weapon to get even with their spouse, could be justifiable.
“Petitioner is seeking to retain an advantage for the registered unrecognized political parties to get continued access to a particular free symbol and therefore indirectly converting a free symbol into a reserved symbol.”
“Whenever medicines are brought in respect of rare diseases, the custom authorities shall ensure that the same are cleared expeditiously and no unnecessary impediments are caused in ensuring that the same reach the hospital concerned.”
It is crucial to recognize that delays in the victim’s testimony before the learned trial court, often attributed to the intricate nature of trauma recovery, should not serve as grounds for the accused to seek bail.
“By virtue of Para 15.6.2(e) of the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021 (‘MPD 2021’), the opening of a liquor shop in a residential premise under the mixed-use policy of the MPD 2021 is expressly prohibited.”
Supreme Court was hearing a matter pertaining to judicial infrastructure and AAP’s alleged encroachment of land allotted to Delhi High Court.
A defamation suit was filed by Mahua Moitra, a leader of the Trinamool Congress (TMC) against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Nishikant Dubey and Advocate Jai Anant Dehadrai seeking to restrain them from making defamatory statements against her regarding accepting bribes in exchange for raising questions in Parliament and sharing her parliamentary account login credentials.
“The unknown operators of the profiles and groups are not associated with Akshay Tanna or KKR Advisors India (P) Ltd. and have not been authorized in any manner to offer financial trading and investment related advice on their behalf.”
Delhi High Court affirmed the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi’s (GNCTD) authority over the administration of the UCMSB-GTB Hospital. The ruling solidifies the GNCTD’s jurisdiction in healthcare governance, setting a significant precedent for future administrative matters in the capital region.
Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Senior Citizens Rules outlines a procedure for eviction from a senior citizen’s property and sub-rule (iv) allows the authority to conduct summary proceedings and order eviction of a son, daughter, or legal heir for non-maintenance and ill-treatment.
“Balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff, and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted.”
In a landmark ruling, the Delhi High Court unequivocally dismissed the antiquated notion of ‘pardanashin,’ affirming that a woman’s dignity transcends cultural stereotypes like the veil. Upholding fundamental rights, the court emphasized that dignity is intrinsic to every individual, irrespective of religious practices.
“To iron out the discrepancy which arises as a result of the unavoidable possibility of different papers being of different difficulty levels that the process of normalization is adopted. Individual discomfitures are inevitable in such a process and cannot afford a basis to unseat the entire examination.”
“The information pertaining to an assessee cannot be granted under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in view of Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.”
Delhi High Court highlighted the commitment to upholding the principles of juvenile justice and protecting individuals from undue repercussions for offenses committed during their minority.
Delhi High Court noted that the trial in the instant case is at a very initial stage and charges have not been framed yet by the Trial Court, and there are 34 prosecution witnesses to be examined who are prone to influence and pressure.