Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court pointed out that merely because the petitioner provided monetary help to the woman, it cannot be said that they are married. Since the woman was already married, there is no case of breach of promise to marry either.
“Permitting registration of a FIR cannot be a frolicsome act on the part of the Magistrate” – The Court noted that callous attitude of Magistrates has given tremendous rise to huge litigations.
Noting the husband’s interest in watching videos by Sisters of Brahmakumari, which eventually led to non-consummation of his marriage, the Court was of the view that this situation does not fall under the scheme of S. 498-A, IPC.
While hearing the appeal against conviction for attempt to murder, the Court stated that the accused’s actions fall under ‘causing grievous hurt’ rather than ‘attempt to murder’.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The Court was firmly of the view that the Inspector, Department of Legal Metrology had misinterpreted key provisions of Legal Metrology Act and Packaged Commodities Rules thereby vitiating the complaint with malafides.
The High Court was bewildered that such a flawed rationale was applied to deny relief to an estranged couple.
The Court was deliberating over an appeal challenging the rejection of bail to the accused charged under IPC and UAPA for being actively involved with the ‘KG Halli Riots’ in Bengaluru.
It was stated that decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Naresh Gundyal v. State on same issue, defeats the very object of S. 498-A, IPC and Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Holding that commission of rape on a woman’s dead body would not attract Ss. 375 and 377, Penal Code, 1860, the Court pointed out that its high time for the Central Government to consider amending S. 377 or introduce a specific provision to address necrophilia, sadism.
While Xiaomi’s petition was held to be maintainable on the fulcrum of Article 14, however, the impugned provision as per the High Court did not manifest any arbitrariness.
The Court was hearing a case where a wife had lodged a complaint alleging cruelty by her husband and in-laws, after a divorce petition had already been filed by the husband.
The Court noted that the Trial Court made an error in allowing Blinkhit’s application for temporary injunction, without properly appreciating the available materials on record vis-à-vis the trademark’s usage and nature of the business carried out by the parties.
The Court strictly observed that in India, Gurus/teachers are considered akin to God and the Government Teacher’s perverse acts have created fear in the minds of the parents of minor girls students.
The State Government had issued the impugned orders to sanction prosecution against the petitioners under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The High Court quashed the GST notice of Rs 21,000 crores issued to Gameskraft holding it to be arbitrary and did a detailed analysis of various nuances of ‘game of chance’ and ‘game of skill’.
Justice Dinesh Maheshwari who is serving as a Judge of the Supreme Court of India, retires today after an extensive career of 4 years. Prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court, he had served as the Chief Justice of the High Court of Karnataka and the Chief Justice of the High Court of Meghalaya.
Prime Minister, Narendra Modi is supposed to be a part of 2 roadshows that are being organised in Bengaluru on 6th and 7th May.