Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court held that overnight custody was not warranted where the child had never stayed overnight with the father and required further time to acclimatise, the Court thus modified the Family Court’s order and granted the father extended daytime custody instead.
The Court asserted that since the respondent-father had already travelled to USA, he could spend time with the child there and to give priority to the minor child, he could extend his stay in USA by working remotely from there.
The Delhi High Court, in a criminal contempt petition under Article 215, held that freedom of speech does not protect scandalous and unsubstantiated allegations of corruption and criminality against a sitting Judge, as such publications undermine the administration of justice.
Upon comparing the allegations against the appellant with those against other co-accused who were granted bail by Supreme Court, the Delhi High Court concluded that there was “no major distinction” between their respective roles.
The Court noted that attribution of non-existent propositions to Supreme Court precedents, if established, would be a matter of serious concern.
“There ought to be free space for movement of the public. Beautification and development of the area is also required, so that the passengers and tourists can enjoy a comfortable experience while visiting a bus stand or the nearby railway station.”
“The social circumstances and the economic status of the family may have compelled the Prosecutrix and her mother to give contradictory statements or to turn hostile. However, in such cases the Court cannot completely ignore the scientific evidence which has come on record.”
In the present case, a Deputy SP, CBI, was accused of demanding illegal gratification. He was placed under suspension, and disciplinary proceedings were initiated under Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution without a regular inquiry. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed him from service.
The Court accepted the contention that encashment of insurance surety bonds aggregating to nearly ₹100 crores, prior to final adjudication, would result in grave and irreversible loss and injury.
The Court considered how the timing of a Show Cause Notice by Customs Department impacts the owner’s liability.