Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court explained that Insider Trading, in essence, is a “dealing in a company’s securities having been informed by confidential information which is likely to affect the price of the securities in the market, once such information is made public”.
Supreme Court enhanced maintenance for a wife undergoing cancer treatment and her 2 minor children, holding that PF and ESPP deductions are benefits accruing to the husband and not permanent charges.
While deciding a matrimonial maintenance dispute where a husband presented videos and photographs obtained from a private investigator before the trial court to prove his wife’s adultery, the Court expressed massive concerns over breach of privacy, proper authorisation thereby highlighting engagement of private investigators as “an area sans regulation”.
A husband can’t simply delay a wife’s interim maintenance by alleging adultery, but if he proves it clearly, at the very outset, the law is equally clear: she isn’t entitled to a rupee, interim or final. The Supreme Court draws the line between the two.
The Court clarified that the safeguards against arrest laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 shall be strictly followed. No live-in partner or relative should be arrested without the mandated preliminary safeguards.
Supreme Court awarded ₹15 lakhs compensation to the widow of a man who died after a stray bull attack, holding that relegating the claimants to a civil suit after nearly 2 decades would leave them “remediless”.
The Court stated that National Commission for Scheduled Castes has powers to requisition documents and receive evidence, but it does not have the power to make an order in furtherance of that evidence.
The Court held that although the expression “arising out of” receives a broad interpretation and compensation proceedings are governed by the standard of preponderance of probabilities, the existence of some link whatsoever between the car, and the death had to be established.
Upholding the appellant’s conviction for gang rape, the Court modified the sentence from imprisonment for the remainder of natural life to 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment with the benefit of remission after considering his young age, absence of criminal antecedents, satisfactory conduct in prison and the possibility of reformation.
The Supreme Court held that Railways cannot be held liable for shortage of goods booked at “owner’s risk” unless negligence or misconduct is proved under Section 97, Railways Act, 1989. The Court clarified the burden of proof under Section 65(2) and dismissed the compensation claim.
Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, concurring with Justice Sanjay Karol, stated that “the right of pre-emption as conferred under Section 22 of the HSA is, in its pith and substance, an incident of succession and nothing more”.
The Court observed ITRs are statutory documents when it comes to assessing one’s income, for the purposes of compensation under the MV Act. Hence, it issued the Guidelines for annual income assessment after effectively making a bifurcation between salaried individuals and self-employed individuals.
The Court held that an error in taking cognizance under an incorrect statutory provision does not necessarily vitiate criminal proceedings. Under Section 465 CrPC, such an irregularity may be cured unless it results in a failure of justice or causes prejudice to the accused.
The Court held that where a three-Judge Bench has recognised an earlier materially identical policy as an exercise of Article 161 power, a contrary coordinate Bench decision treating the later identical policy as statutory is per incuriam.
Supreme Court has held that a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC must be signed by the parties or a duly authorised representative, and that an advocate cannot bind a client to a compromise affecting valuable property rights solely on implied authority
Supreme Court clarified that compassionate appointment and compassionate financial assistance are distinct benefits under the Haryana Compassionate Assistance Rules, 2019, and held that Rule 23(1) cannot be invoked to defer a claim for compassionate appointment during the pendency of criminal proceedings.
A man who had owned land since childhood under a 1960 deed was nearly stripped of his entire property through a doctrine designed to prevent re-litigation, the Supreme Court stepped in, holding that constructive res judicata cannot be used to produce harsh or inequitable consequences.
The Court recognised that it would be unrealistic to expect a constant vigil over every tree and shrub within city limits. Likewise, although it may be conceivable that an old branch might eventually give way, public authorities cannot be expected to cut every branch merely because such a possibility exists.
Holding that wilful abstention from inquiry after receiving a court notice attracts constructive notice, the Supreme Court ruled the respondents’ 2022 revocation application hopelessly time-barred under Art. 137, Limitation Act, and restored the Single Judge’s dismissal order.
The Court clarified that the guidelines issued herein are not intended to be understood as exhaustive or inflexible guidelines to be applied mechanically in every case. The determination of such application was left to the sound discretion of the Court concerned, to be exercised on a case-to-case basis.