Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 124(2) of the Constitution, the President appointed Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court, to be Judge of Supreme Court of India.
The High Court held that after the rejection of one application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC, a subsequent or other application, for rejection of the plaint, can be filed if it is based on a ground different from the ground taken in the earlier application, even at the appellate stage and shall be decided on merits.
“Where construction of roads was undertaken and the toll was being collected as a reciprocal arrangement under the agreement, there was no tax exemption because the collection of toll was essentially the consideration being received and amounted to annuity and in case of any ambiguity, the same was to be interpreted in favor of the revenue/state and not in favor of the assessee.”
The High Court further held that an unduly prolonged investigation without adequate justification entitles the accused to approach the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR, reiterating that investigations cannot continue endlessly at the cost of both complainant and accused.
Holding that the interpretation of Swami Vivekanand Scholarship for Academic Excellence Yojana Guidelines 2025 has to be done in a manner to help the student to pursue his course and not to create hurdles, the Rajasthan High Court directed the State Government to immediately release the scholarship amount.
Justice Pankaj Mithal began his career in law in the 1980s and subsequently went on to become Judge at the Supreme Court of India.
A detailed investigative report published in Rajasthan Patrika titled “शटर डाउन… ‘इमरजेंसी विंडो’ चालू: रात 8 बजें बाद भी धड़ल्ले से बिक रही शराब, supported by photographs, timestamps and field verification, indicated that despite statutory closing hours applicable to liquor vends, liquor sale allegedly continued openly after 8.00 p.m. through concealed openings, restricted access windows and partially shuttered premises at various locations within Jodhpur.
“Foreign Nationals who are facing trial in India are also entitled to Right to Live with Dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution. This right has been established as a powerful shield of protection, ensuring that Right to Live with Dignity extends beyond borders, safeguarding all human beings.”
Rajasthan High Court: The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority, Commercial Tax, Jodhpur wherein the GST registration of the
The Collegium resolution was passed on 19-04-2023.
The Supreme Court collegium resolutions were passed on 19-04-2023.
The Supreme Court said that the power to take additional evidence in an appeal is to be exercised to prevent injustice and failure of justice, and thus, it must be exercised for good and valid reasons necessitating the acceptance of the prayer.
The Supreme Court affirmed the order passed by the High Court stating that the respondent assessee was neither entitled to the deductions nor profit earned under Section 80-IB on the amount of DEPB as well as Duty Drawback Scheme.
In the case at hand, a man had shot himself dead following a monetary dispute with the 74-year-old Advocate’s sone and two others.
After three rounds of litigation and 15 years of struggle, the petitioners got a conditional order of appointment to the post of Prabodhak.
The three Supreme Court collegium resolutions were passed dated 28-03-2023.
The Rajasthan High Court perused the entire scheme under Chapter VI of the 1987 Act and stated that the Lok Adalat had no adjudicatory power and by allowing the prayer of the PP to withdraw prosecution, it had exercised adjudicatory jurisdiction which was not vested in it.
The Court sought assistant of BCI and directed to implead its Secretary in the present petition and accordingly issued notice to BCI who may come up with appropriate suggestions in the matter towards framing of guidelines.
The Court held that the employer is prohibited by law from referring to or taking in consideration the judgment of conviction so as to deprive a successful candidate, who was a child in conflict with law at some point of time from being employed in Government service.
“A “resignation” of a Public Office, when made with an intention of relinquishing the office, accompanied by an act relinquishment, then nothing further is required. Resignation once accepted, cannot be allowed to be withdrawn.” Observed the High Court