Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court stayed an FIR registration order, observing that a simple breach of contract cannot be forcefully converted into a criminal action.
Delhi High Court ruled that the mandatory 30-day notice period under the Special Marriage Act cannot be relaxed merely because one of the parties is required to join employment abroad, emphasising that courts cannot bypass express statutory requirements.
The respondents submitted that “the rehabilitation and relocation of the jhuggi dwellers has become essential due to the highly sensitive and strategic location of the area. The JJ clusters lie in a protected zone, immediately next to an operational Air Force Station.”
The Delhi High Court upheld the eviction of a widow and her son from the in-laws’ property under the Senior Citizens Act, holding that shared household rights under the Domestic Violence Act do not create proprietary rights and cannot override senior citizens’ right to peaceful residence.
“The parties shall be at liberty to take all remedies available in law for requiring the other spouse to place on record the affidavit as mandated under Rajnesh v. Neha, (2020) 2 SCC 324.”
The Court directed that the petitioner’s husband action and his consent in opting for IVF treatment be treated to be sufficient compliance for the purposes of Section 22, ART Act.
“In the absence of any rival or competing claims, and where the identity and entitlement of the legal heirs are clearly verified, the competent authority may release retiral benefits, pensionary dues, compensation.”
Blanket freezing of accounts of persons who are neither accused nor suspects is arbitrary, disproportionate and violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
“An unqualified application of Section 19… would defeat the object of the provision, and open the door to forum shopping, libel tourism, and luxury litigation.”
The petitioner argued that his disability details should be removed from online records under the right to be forgotten, claiming the disclosure caused stigma, discrimination, and violation of his privacy and dignity.
“In the considered opinion of the Court, it has now become necessary to come down heavily on luxury litigation and use costs as a means to filter out superfluous litigation.”
Where the defamatory statement is repeated by the plaintiff while responding to employment inquiries or during job interviews, the defendant’s liability does not stand extinguished. Where the plaintiff has no meaningful choice but to disclose the defamatory rationale to prospective employers, such compelled republication imposes continuing responsibility upon the defendant.
‘The essential, material, and integral cause of action had arisen beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.’
‘If the State fails to adhere to the practical necessity of preserving human life, it leads to a tragic loss of human dignity.’
‘The functions performed by the Election Commission of India under Section 29A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are essentially quasi-judicial in nature, and any order issued thereunder constitutes a quasi-judicial order.’
Merely because a parent entity may exercise shareholder influence over its subsidiary that would not lead to an assumption that the subsidiary in question was operating as a mere puppet or that it was wholly subservient to the parent entity.
Asking the student to continue studying in the MCD school would be tantamount to an onslaught on his constitutional rights and the Constitutional Court would be failing in its duty to secure the fundamental rights of the young citizen.
The Court said that the disposal letter by the Railways neither suggested that any effort was made nor provided any measure to help evade such fatal situations in the future.
The Court observed that no new material has been found by the Revenue which would warrant reopening the assessment. A reading of the notices will crystallize the fact that it has been issued merely based on a change of opinion.
The Court quashed the notice of reassessment issued on 31-3-2023 as it surpassed the ten-year block as prescribed u/S first provision to Section of 148(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.