Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court altered the conviction from Section 20(b)(ii)(C) to Section 20(b)(ii)(B), NDPS Act, after the prosecution failed to prove joint possession of the total quantity of ganja recovered under 2 seizure lists and, treating the seizures separately and below commercial quantity.
The legislative intent behind Section 122(1-A) of the Act of 2017 is solely to identify the person at whose instance the violations took place and if the person had retained the benefits, the person would be liable to a penalty as mentioned therein.
The Court held that a railway employee is not entitled to HRA when vacant government quarters, in the entitled category, are available.
“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.”
“Cheque number is the most essential part of the demand notice filed under Section 138 NI Act for insufficient funds. Without it, notice falls short of legal requirement.”
The High Court explained that if an order is passed without giving a reason by the concerned authority, then the order is a non-speaking one, including an order which does not provide a clear reason for its decision.
“The sustainability or perversity of the decision of the Tribunal should only be assessed after certain nuances in the evidence as well as some documents discussing the core issue is properly dealt with by the Tribunal.”
The Court observed that “in order to gain political mileage, Mr. Khera has dragged an innocent lady into the controversy.”
Justice Vijay Bishnoi, known for his commitment to upholding constitutional principles and ensuring procedural fairness, took oath of office as Judge of Supreme Court of India in May 2025.
Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh served as the Chief Justice of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, prior to being elevated as Judge of the Supreme Court of India on 18-7-2024.
“To grant relief in case of this nature after the guilt has been proved and affirmed, would not merely undermine the majesty of the law, it would amount to betrayal of the constitutional promise made to every child in this country.”
There is no valid justification for creating two classes of pensioners, i.e. those who retired between 1-1-2006 and 31-3-2009, and those who retired after 31-3-2009, solely to grant a revised pension.
Gauhati High Court observed that by virtue of Section 16(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 , a deeming fiction is created to the advantage of the State Information Commissioner, who would be paid similar salary and postretiral benefits as that of Chief Secretary.
“Gauhati High Court noted that the petitioners were employees of the Board and served on conditionally sanctioned posts, which were permanently retained and they were being paid their salary from grants-in-aid and not from the ordinary Head for disbursement of salary of the government employees.”
On 19-8-2025, the Collegium recommended 3 Judges as Permanent & Additional Judges of Gauhati High Court and 14 Advocates as Judges of Bombay High Court.
On 05-07-2023, the Supreme Court Collegium had recommended the appointment of Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, Chief Justice, High Court for the State of Telangana to the Supreme Court of India. Upon acceptance of the recommendation by the Law Ministry, Justice Bhuyan took oath as Supreme Court Judge on 14-07-2023.
In a press note issued by the Ministry of Law and Justice, the President appointed 19 Advocates and Judicial Officers as Judges and Additional Judges in Gauhati, Madhya Pradesh and Telangana High Court.
Since the selection for the post of regular Head Master, as mandated by Clause 3 of the Notification dated 2-3-2010 is made strictly based on seniority-cum-efficiency, then the logical corollary that flows from the aforesaid proposition, is that the appointment of an In-Charge Head Master must also adhere the same seniority-cum-efficiency principle.
The petitioner submitted that it filed an arbitration petition before Punjab and Haryana High Court, as part of the agreement was executed at Chandigarh. However, the Punjab and Haryana High Court was unable to decide the petition due to territorial bar. Hence, the present petition is filed.
Justice Vijay Bishnoi, known for his commitment to upholding constitutional principles and ensuring procedural fairness, took oath of office as Judge of Supreme Court of India in May 2025.