Revisiting Exception 5 to Section 300
by Tushar Agarwal†
by Tushar Agarwal†
Sikkim High Court: The Division Bench of Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari and Meenakshi Madan Rai, JJ., heard a Public Interest Litigation relating to
Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of S.Manikumar, CJ, and Shaji P. Chaly, J., rejected the petition seeking direction to the State
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta, JJ., while addressing the present matter, remarked that: Fate of
Rajasthan High Court: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J., allowed a petition which dealt with the issue as to whether the third child born
Supreme Court: A Division Bench comprising of R.F. Nariman and B.R. Gavai, JJ. held that an arbitral award which is based on
Delhi High Court: Yogesh Khanna, J., remarked that, Once the Parliament steps in and cures the defect pointed out by a Constitutional
Allahabad High Court: Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J. dismissed the petition and declined to entertain the present application in exercise of its inherent
Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., held that, “…relegating parties to customary Courts when they themselves admit that they are following
Gujarat High Court: The Division Bench of Vineet Kothari and B.N. Karia, JJ., took up a petition which dealt with the parties
Kerala High Court: P.B.Suresh Kumar, J., invoked the doctrine of parens patriae to permit termination of eight weeks pregnancy of a medically
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. and Alok Kumar Verma, J., dealt with the petition which came
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. upheld the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram,
Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of S. Muralidhar, CJ and S.K. Panigrahi, J. gave a slew of directions regarding the issue
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of R.D. Dhanuka and R.I. Chagla, JJ., refused to quash departmental enquiry against the petitioner even
Delhi High Court: V. Kameswar Rao, J., had set aside the controversial order of the CCIM (Central Council of Indian Medicine), whereby,
Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI): Suresh B Menon, Adjudicating Officer, imposed a monetary penalty of Rs three lakh on Viaan Industries
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of B.V Nagarathna and Hanchate Sanjeev Kumar, JJ. allowed the petition and remarked: “no child is
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hemant Gupta, JJ. upheld Rajasthan High Court’s order whereby it had directed