Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Articles 226 and 227 should ordinarily not be used to correct interlocutory procedural orders of an Arbitral Tribunal unless there is a patent jurisdictional defect or exceptional perversity.
Supreme Court holds that a writ petition under Article 226 cannot be treated as one under Article 227 to deny an appellate remedy. Revenue Court orders can be challenged under Article 226.
The Court held that so long as one spouse of a “commissioning couple” satisfies the age criteria prescribed under Section 21(g), Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, 2021, the couple cannot be denied access to Assisted Reproductive Technology services merely because the other spouse has exceeded the upper age-limit, following a consistent line of decisions of the Calcutta, Madhya Pradesh and other High Courts.
While the arbitrator and the Tribunal proceeded on the presumption that claimant continued to be a member of respondent Society, the Delhi High Court found that material documentary evidence concerning his resignation, transfer of his share and rejection of his subsequent membership application had been overlooked.
The Court observed that “the very purpose of the LLM 3-year course is to enable students to continue practice before the Courts while simultaneously pursuing their Masters program”.
The petition raises a sensitive and classic judicial conundrum: Where does a genuine, conscious personal choice end, and where does administrative coercion begins?
The High Court held that in view of the alternative, efficacious statutory remedy under the SARFAESI Act, the writ petition was not maintainable and the question of law raised under the IBC was nothing but another desperate attempt to avoid steps being taken by the secured creditor under the SARFAESI Act.
The Court held that where material facts are disputed, the appropriate remedy ordinarily lies before the competent adjudicatory forum and not before High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court examined whether a writ petition challenging an NCLT order passed under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 could be entertained when the Code provides a statutory right of appeal under Section 61, in the context of the judicial discipline governing exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The Court remarked that the daughters, despite being major, educated and legally competent women, were deprived of their liberty for a prolonged period, solely because they exercised their constitutionally protected freedom of conscience and chose to profess a religion different from that professed by their family.
The Court expressed serious concern over the Income Tax Department’s failure to release seized cash and jewellery even after adjustment of the tax demand and completion of requisite formalities, observing that such prolonged inaction reflected red-tapism and high-handedness on the part of the authorities.
The Court held applicable rules did not prescribe a mandatory requirement of 10ten years’’ continuous physical residence, and such a condition could not be introduced or enlarged through executive or administrative instructions.
Supreme Court held that the existing judicial framework, including e-filing, virtual hearings and urgent listing mechanisms, adequately ensures round-the-clock access to constitutional remedies in cases involving imminent threats to life, liberty and other fundamental rights.
The Court observed that the relief sought by the petitioner seems to be in disguise as it tries to achieve approval indirectly, which it has failed to achieve directly.
The Court called for a shift from occasional seminars to continuous professional learning and proposed a full-time National Legal Academy to strengthen advocates’ skills, ethics, technological competence, and long-term development.
The instant dispute arose from Canara Bank’s allegation that the appellant’s legal opinion wrongly certified the entire mortgaged property as belonging to the guarantor, despite prior sale deeds affecting part of it. The Bank treated the alleged omission in title verification as negligence that exposed it to financial risk.
The Court held that a PIL seeking disclosure of the scientific archaeological survey of the Somnath Temple site was not maintainable where it was founded on unverified media reports, contained incorrect factual assertions, and failed to disclose the petitioner’s bona fides and credentials.
Delhi High Court held that an unnatural death in police custody, including death by suicide, constitutes a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution and attracts the State’s public law liability to compensate the victim’s family.
This Court viewed that the balance of convenience and equities, in the present case, overwhelmingly lie in favour of permitting the proposed liver donation and transplantation. In case such permission is denied, it may lead to loss of life of the petitioner’s father.
Delhi High Court dismissed challenges to the Indian Dressage Team selection for the 2026 Asian Games, holding that the EFI followed the prescribed Selection Criteria and reiterating the limited scope of judicial review in sports selections.