Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In the earlier order, the Supreme Court deferred the hearing after noting that the defects in the Delhi Government’s petition copy have not been removed.
Emphasising the unfortunate nature of the case, Calcutta High Court urged the petitioner to cooperate with the ongoing investigation.
“Several cases are filed in this Court every week in which it is alleged that Municipal Corporation of Delhi has taken no action despite several complaints having been submitted regarding a particular construction.”
Delhi High Court noted that after coming to know that the said document was manufactured, respondent 1 filed a complaint before the Bar Council of Delhi against Mr. Sanjay Aggarwal, Advocate.
“It is not stated in the affidavit as to how the documents are relevant to the suit except stating that, the documents are important and crucial documents to prove that the promissory note suit is a rank forged and materially altered.”
There should be no scope for the declarant to escape on the technical grounds from responsibility attached to the statement made by him in the affidavit. Unless those compliances, referred to in paragraphs 5 and 8 of chapter VII of the Criminal Manual are complied with, it will be difficult to hold the person making a declaration on oath responsible for the statement made on an oath.
Gauhati High Court: While deciding this interesting writ petition praying for the issuance of the writ of Mandamus directing to
Allahabad High Court: In a case relating to the fire incident on 05.09.2022 at a well-known hotel, namely, Levana Suites, where four
Allahabad High Court issues notice to Nagar Nigam on compensation to family after stray dog menace leaves one child dead and other seriously injured
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Rohit Arya and Milind Ramesh Phadke, JJ., admitted a petition which was filed to
Allahabad High Court: Expressing that Courts of law are meant for imparting justice, Sanjay Kumar Singh, J., observed that more often the
Supreme Court: In a case where the Magistrate had passed an order under Section 156(3) CrPC even in absence of an affidavit
Allahabad High Court: Sameer Jain, J., decided that whether for summoning an accused under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, recording
Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of S Muralidhar, CJ and Savitri Ratho, J., directed State to file an affidavit addressing concerns
Orissa High Court: S. K. Panigrahi, J., dismissed the bail application being found defective as the affidavit was sworn by the advocate’s
Karnataka High Court: John Michael Cunha J., allowed the petition partly stating that Section 156(3) CrPC applications are to be supported by
Madras High Court: A Division Bench of R. Subbiah and R. Pongiappan, JJ. issued notice to T.N. Government to reply on the plea
Supreme Court: A bench headed by Justice Arun Mishra, JJ has reserved its order on the review petition filed by former Maharashtra
Punjab & Haryana High Court: Surinder Gupta, J. dismissed a petition dealing with the question whether accused under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Supreme Court: In a major blow to Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis, the 3-judge bench of Ranjan Gogoi, CJ and Deepak Gupta and