Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Merely for the reason that the view of the Appellate Court is a better view than the one taken by the arbitral tribunal, is no ground to set aside the award”.
The Single Judge in order dated 16-07-2024 held that there are enough documents proving that appellant had started construction on Virar property even though there is a status quo order, and thus, to safeguard and preserve the property, a Court Receiver needs to be appointed.
The Court found the order of the Appellate Court was completely bereft of any findings or reasoning for reducing the maintenance amount, and that the Appellate Court could not have reduced the amount of maintenance once having rejected the Application for stay.
The impugned Order clearly holds that the petitioner is deemed to have abandoned the application and that it has failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970.
“The preliminary assessment is not a trial or just a simple routine task, but an exercise to assess the child’s capacity to commit and understand the consequences of the alleged crime. It decides the fate of the child in conflict with the law”.
“JJ Board and the Children’s Court to conduct the preliminary assessment into heinous offences in a very meticulous way with the psychological evaluation, taking the assistance of experienced psychologist and medical specialist”.
This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on duty of appellate court under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the Official Receiver to cancel the sale deed as the same was without application of Section 53 of Provincial Insolvency Act.
Karnataka High Court: HP Sandesh J. dismissed the petition and upheld the judgment by the Appellate Court and further directed the complainant
Supreme Court: Reminding the Courts of the importance of hierarchy of Courts, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh*, JJ
Supreme Court of Canada: The Bench comprising of Wagner C.J. and Moldaver, Côté, Brown, Rowe, Martin and Kasirer JJ., held that appellate
Delhi High Court: While stating the well-settled law that even when an appellate Court affirms the order of the Court below, it
Gujarat High Court: A.P. Thaker, J., allowed a petition which was filed aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of
Kerala High Court: N.Anil Kumar, J., allowed the instant revision petition against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate
Bombay High Court: Vibha Kankanwadi, J., observed that, “The practice of pronouncing Judgments in appeal against conviction in absence of the accused, thereby
Uttaranchal High Court: A writ petition was entertained by Manoj K. Tiwari, J. where the petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Amit Rawal J., dismissed the second appeal petition on the ground that there was no substantial question
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. dismissed a petition finding no merit in the appeal as when two reasonable conclusions are
Allahabad High Court: This petition was filed by petitioners before the Division Bench of Pankaj Kumar Jaiswal and Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,
Supreme Court: Reminding the Courts of the scope of their powers, the bench of Abhay Manohar Sapre and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ has