Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The religious character of the “disputed area” of Bhojshala Complex and Kamal Maula Mosque was held to be a Temple of Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati) in the light of provisions of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.”
Reiterating the distinction between territorial jurisdiction and forum convenience, the Supreme Court held that once jurisdiction is validly attracted under Article 226(1) by the presence of necessary respondent authorities within a High Court’s territorial limits, the doctrine of forum non conveniens cannot be routinely invoked to decline adjudication.
The Court held that welfare of the child remains the paramount consideration, but such welfare must be assessed after considering all relevant facts and circumstances rather than through a summary determination based on affidavits.
The Court held that date of birth dispute must first be resolved under Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 before seeking correction in CBSE records.
Cheq Digital’s writ petition challenging DGGI’s provisional attachment of its bank accounts under Form GST DRC-22 was disposed of as infructuous after DGGI itself withdrew the attachment order during pendency, with ICICI Bank undertaking to implement the withdrawal forthwith.
“The cryptic judgment of the Tribunal appears to be perverse and requires a thorough and elaborate discussion by dealing with the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner.”
“Doctrine of Comity of Courts is important but not absolute, and welfare of the child is the paramount consideration.”
“It is well settled that, in case of conflict between form and substance, substance must prevail, unless the law expressly mandates strict adherence to the form as well.”
“The respondents are directed to conduct enquiry independently in this regard and ensure that no injustice is caused to the petitioner by violating her fundamental rights as contemplated under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
“The right to protest is protected, however, the right to insist upon a particular public junction for an indefinite recurring protest is not.”
“Justice is administered strictly in accordance with law and on the basis of legally admissible material placed on record, and not on emotional considerations or theatrical conduct in the Courtroom.”
“It is open to the petitioner to challenge the orders of the OHRC and of the State Information Commissioner and avail any alternate remedy available to him under the law.”
Holding that the Sentence Review Board cannot reject premature release solely on the gravity of the offence, the Delhi High Court said such decisions must consider custodial conduct, rehabilitative indicators, and other relevant factors under the 2004 Policy and Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.
“The magnitude of these revisions is not merely incidental; it bespeaks a systemic lapse in the framing, vetting, and finalisation of the question papers and answer keys, including issues of translation parity, which should have been unambiguous from the outset.”
A litigant cannot be placed in a worse position merely for having approached the court.
“Bar Association is a body of private individual lawyers and in normal discharge of its functions, it does not perform any function which can be said to be a public function”
“Rule 13 of the Kerala Registration of Marriage (Common) Rules, 2008 restricts major changes in the marriage register, permitting only corrections of errors in form or substance or fraudulent or improper entries, subject to conditions in sub-rule (2).”
“Bhagavad Gita may be recognised as national (Rashtriya) Dharma Shastra. It speaks about internal and eternal truth… Bhagavad Gita cannot therefore be confined within a given religion. It is a part of Bharatiya civilisation.”
“To cancel the candidature of otherwise eligible candidates, on sole grounds of issuance date, deprives the petitioners of their fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and actually runs contrary to the object sought to be achieved by providing reservations in public employment”
The Executing Court’s role in enforcing a decree based on a Lok Adalat award under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 is limited to execution alone. It cannot annul, set aside, or question the validity of the award, and objections in execution cannot serve as an alternative remedy to challenge the award.