Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Allahabad High Court opined that marriage between the appellant and respondent as per Hindu rites and customs in terms of Section 7 of the HMA 1955 itself is not proved and the Trial Court has gravely erred in not considering this aspect of the matter which was implicit in the issues framed by it.
The Court referred to Niranjan Singh v. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote (1980) 2 SCC 559, wherein it was explained that no lexical dexterity nor precedential profusion is needed to come to the realistic conclusion that he who is under the control of the court or is in the physical hold of an officer with coercive power is in custody for the purpose of Section 439, CrPC.
The amendment has been notified to insert institutional mechanism for the prevention and detection of fraud or market abuse.
Respondents submitted that no opportunity of personal hearing was required to be assigned to the aggrieved, before the FIR was filed and registered.
Petitioner has shown remorse for his conduct and undertakes not to repeat the same in future. Respondent 2 also states that he has settled the disputes with the petitioner out of his own free will, volition and without any coercion.
“Documents placed on record suggest that the State Government, at the level of the Cabinet had approved creation of the supernumerary posts to accommodate the persons who had received employment illegally in the selection process”
“We cannot keep our eyes shut and be a mere mute spectator of the fraud, which the builders have played on the home buyers and Noida Authority”
“The term ‘serious crime’ connotes a crime beyond the ordinary, inviting a more serious major punishment than what may be given in the case of a minor omission.”
Allahabad High Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition after ensuring compliance of Sections 8 and 9 of UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.
Calcutta High Court stated that show-cause notices are analogous to a First Information Report (FIR) and are not required to detail the probative value of the Forensic Audit Report at this stage.
“The users are being re-directed to website www.leadleacoin.com, an alleged bitcoin and cryptocurrency exchange, which is not linked with plaintiff. It appears to be an illegitimate website, intended to be used as ploy to induce users to invest substantial sums of money, being drawn using “SEQUOIA” mark.”
The Calcutta High Court clarified that rejection of the plaint is not warranted based on allegations of collusion or lack of cause of action, which are factual issues to be determined during the trial.
“The concerned Investigating Agency cannot expect anyone who is an accused, to sing in a tune which is music to their ears, more so, whence such an accused, is well and truly protected under Article 20(3) of the Constitution.”
Supreme Court said that allowing the orders of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority to stand, will be unjust, unfair and oppressive, as the charges were not just similar, but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same.
The Court termed this case to be highly unusual one that draws attention to matters of wider importance and touches the reputation of arbitration as a dispute resolution process.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on rescinding partition on ground of fraud.
“A choice and will of a woman to exercise residential choice at her natal home should not be viewed through patriarchal prism to deny her the residential status there”
FIRs were registered on the complaints of homebuyers, who have alleged that Amrapali Leisure Valley Private Limited, Amrapali Dream Valley Private Limited, and their directors/officials, including the applicant have committed offences of cheating, fraud and criminal breach of trust in respect of various residential projects in Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh.
Madras High Court said that if the complaint of the petitioner turns out to be untrue or was intended to facilitate fraud being committed using the login ID of the petitioner, the assets of the petitioner shall be brought to sale.
The NCLAT rejected Resolution Professional’s reliance on Section 17 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as no fraud was found on the part of the Corporate Debtor.