Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court directed the Registrar General of this Court to send a copy of this Order to the Principal District Judge, Jamshedpur with a direction to impress upon the Judicial Magistrate concerned, not to pass orders in such reckless manner, without application of mind and unnecessarily enhance the burden upon this Court.
The Court stated that when the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was already filed by the petitioners, Respondent 2 had all the opportunity to defend in that pending complaint case, and without doing so, present complaint case was filed implicating the petitioners.
Petitioner stated that he had not filed any such or similar petition for quashing before the present Court or the Supreme Court. However, the Court noted that the petitioner had earlier filed the present petition on 01-04-2024 and the present petition was filed on 17-05-2024.
When the legal process is abused by the members of the legal fraternity, who are supposed to be its protectors and preservers, the Court must take an extremely stern view of the matter.
Delhi High Court issued a mandatory reminder, rather than a gentle reminder that it is essential to emphasise that in cases involving offences of serious nature, particularly those falling under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, no form of mediation is permissible.
‘It is unfortunate to notice that a trend has been set to file applications under Article 226 of the Constitution at the drop of hat. Numerous cases has been filled with imaginary and very trivial causes of action. The court is of the opinion that such trend should be nipped in the bud and filling of writ petition of this nature has to be discouraged.’
The Karnataka High Court strictly admonished the petitioner for abusing every jurisdiction of law but refused to impose exemplary costs as the same would only increase the agony of the petitioner, whose marriage was annulled albeit with consent.
Constitutional Court of South Africa | A bench comprising of Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt*, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Theron, Tshiqi, JJ., Mlambo and
The Magistrates are the first lines of defence for both the integrity of the criminal justice system, and the harassed and distraught litigant.
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ., addressed the instant petition regarding landlord-tenant dispute,
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dr. DY Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi, JJ has imposed a fine of Rs 5,00,000
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Vivek Singh Thakur, J. contemplated a petition filed under Section 482 of CrPC, where the petitioner arrived at
Kerala High Court: The Bench of R. Narayana Pisharadi, J. quashed criminal proceedings against a person accused of cheating a bank holding
Patna High Court: The Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J. hearing an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,
Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ. allowed an appeal filed against the judgment of the Delhi
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J., dismissed an execution first appeal filed against the order
Supreme Court of Singapore: A Five Judge Bench comprising of Sundaresh Menon, CJ., Andrew Phan Boon Leong, Judith Prakash, Tay Yong Kwang,
Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench of M.K. Hanjura, J., allowed a petition under Section 561-A of CrPC, 1989
Gauhati High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Mir Alfaz Ali, J., dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 CrPC