Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Taking note of the appellant’s incarceration for more than 1 year and the time likely to be consumed in conclusion of the trial, the Court opined that a case for bail was made.
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 Supreme Court while quashing criminal proceedings under Section 340 CrPC against a litigant and his counsel held that “wrong statement” is not the same as a “false statement”. The Court reiterated that prosecution can be initiated only where a prima facie case of deliberate falsehood exists and the Court records that such action is expedient in the interests of justice.
Supreme Court: High Court Cannot Substitute Mandatory Injunction with Compensation When No Such Relief Is Claimed
Supreme Court held that a High Court cannot substitute a decree of mandatory injunction with monetary compensation in a second appeal when such relief was neither sought nor consented to by the plaintiff.
INC candidate Meenakshi Natarajan’s Rajya Sabha nomination from Madhya Pradesh was rejected for non-disclosure of a pending criminal case in her Form 26 affidavit. The Supreme Court declined to examine the merits, holding that the constitutional bar under Article 329(b) admits no exception for cases involving manifest illegality.
In a judgment arising from a five-year-old child run over by a tanker while walking to school, the Supreme Court declared that Urban Development Authorities, Municipal Corporations and Panchayats bear an enforceable duty to provide pedestrian infrastructure, with remedies independent of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Court held that the candidates included in the revised list of 226 candidates acquired no vested right and must participate in the fresh selection process.
The Calcutta High Court had held that, since no irreversible or irretrievable stage had been reached and the appellant’s unpaid claim could still be pursued before the NCLT, interference with Company Court’s order was unwarranted.
“The statutory right of the landowner under Section 126(1)(b) being twofold as discussed above, the corporation could not have conjured a precondition for the landowner to abjure part of the compensation in order to receive the other part.”
The Supreme Court held that a digitally signed order is the final and binding order of the Court and that corrections or refinements to a dictated draft before signing are permissible so long as they do not materially alter the judgment.
“The Court wields considerable authority, yet the true essence of judicial magnanimity lies in restraint. Measured reprimand and corrective guidance remain the wiser course over sheer penal consequence.”
Supreme Court allowed appeals by formaldehyde manufacturing units in Rajasthan and Haryana and quashed NGT closure orders over absence of prior Environmental Clearance under the EIA Notification, 2006.
Supreme Court rules on Rehbar-e-Taleem (ReT) Scheme closure, holds denial of appointment due to pending litigation arbitrary under Article 14, and grants relief to select panel candidates subject to TET qualification.
The terms of the recruitment rules and the advertisement form the basis of the selection process and are binding on both, the candidates as well as the recruiting agencies.
The criteria prescribed was not in any manner watered down or deviated from the criteria required to be satisfied while seeking regular appointment.
“The Right to Life enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution is not merely a guarantee against the unlawful taking of life, but a positive mandate upon the State to ensure a safe environment where human life is preserved and valued.”
The Court observed that administrative procedures should avoid complexity, redundant requirements, and unnecessary burdens, which waste time, expense, and disturb peace of mind.
Non-furnishing information pertaining to criminal antecedents has the effect of causing undue influence which creates an impediment in the free exercise of electoral right by a voter.