Delhi HC Recommends Increasing District Courts’ Pecuniary Jurisdiction from ₹2 Crore to ₹10 Crore
The Full Court of the Delhi High Court has recommended enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Courts from ₹2 crore to ₹10
The Full Court of the Delhi High Court has recommended enhancing the pecuniary jurisdiction of District Courts from ₹2 crore to ₹10
Justice delayed is justice denied, and any attempt to prolong proceedings by reopening arguments after the matter stood closed and reserved for pronouncement of judgment is liable to be held vitiated in law.
While general allegations may suffice for the purpose of investigation being commenced, the same is not sufficient for the continuance of consequent proceedings.
The intervening parties, including the family of the deceased student have exhibited enormous resilience and deserve to be commended for continuing to pursue the cause, despite the enormous tragedy which struck them with the demise of the student – Sushant Rohilla who has now left a permanent and indelible mark in the legal education space.
Criminal law cannot be used as an instrument of coercion or revenge when a consensual relationship turns sour. The protection of personal liberty, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, must remain paramount, especially when the allegations appear to be exaggerated or motivated.
It is the case of contemnor that the alleged object was not a firearm, but a toy gun used to scare away stray animals and the said toy gun was lying on the office table prior to the inspection, which unintentionally got mixed with a pile of papers.
The Courts, in exercise of their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can constitute committees but these committees are only fact finding in nature. Judicial functions cannot be relegated to these Committees.
The Court noted that the subject property deserves preservation till the appeal is decided.
The plaintiffs, EBC Publishing Pvt Ltd (Eastern Book Company), a pioneer in law publishing for over 84 years and publisher of the widely cited Supreme Court Cases (SCC), approached the Court seeking protection of their flagship ‘coat-pocket’ edition of the Constitution of India, distinguished by its iconic red and black trade dress.
The plaintiffs, EBC Publishing Pvt Ltd (Eastern Book Company), a pioneer in law publishing for over 84 years and publisher of the widely cited Supreme Court Cases (SCC), approached the Court seeking protection of their flagship ‘coat-pocket’ edition of the Constitution of India, distinguished by its iconic red and black trade dress.
The plaintiffs, EBC Publishing Pvt Ltd (Eastern Book Company), a pioneer in law publishing for over 84 years and publisher of the widely cited Supreme Court Cases (SCC), approached the Court seeking protection of their flagship ‘coat-pocket’ edition of the Constitution of India, distinguished by its iconic red and black trade dress.
Filing an application under Section 17(4) before the Adjudicating Authority does not ipso facto permit the ED to retain the seized property unless it also complies with the requirements of Section 20. Failure to do so would amount to a violation of the express procedure established by law.
The petitioner sought to be a fence sitter and waited for the Award to be passed and thereafter filed the present petition after a lapse of more than 9 months. In the meantime, the respondent already filed a petition under Section 34, and the Award has already been stayed on this aspect.
It is well known that in complaints of these kinds sometimes even neighbours or match-makers are indicted and as such to hold that this kind of FIR were to be accepted, to exclude any person from public employment, would be a travesty of justice.
The petitioner, a law graduate, was appointed as Assistant Director (Legal) in BIS in 2021 after due scrutiny by a selection committee. In 2024, her services were terminated on the ground that her earlier experience as an advocate for a private university did not meet the prescribed eligibility of working in a government or autonomous body.
The appellant, Vasundhra Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in 1999, claims continuous use and registration of the mark VASUNDHRA for jewellery, while the respondent, Vasundhara Fashion Jewellery LLP, incorporated in 2016, traces its mark VASUNDHARA to its founder Vasundhara Mantri, who has used the name in business since 2001.
The case relates to an FIR based on the complaint of a security guard at the residence of Ex-MLA from Faridkot, Punjab alleging open firing by two unidentified men at the main gate of the premises.