Supreme Court Says FIR Delay Alone Cannot Be Ground for Bail in Dowry Death Cases
In Mahesh Chand v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court cancelled bail granted in a dowry death case and reiterated that courts
In Mahesh Chand v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court cancelled bail granted in a dowry death case and reiterated that courts
The applicant averred that he discovered a video on the Meta Inc. platform falsely portraying that he suffered from prostatitis, a claim he denied, asserting that the publication was false, misleading and an intrusion into his private life.
Justice delayed is justice denied, and any attempt to prolong proceedings by reopening arguments after the matter stood closed and reserved for pronouncement of judgment is liable to be held vitiated in law.
The Courts, in exercise of their powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, can constitute committees but these committees are only fact finding in nature. Judicial functions cannot be relegated to these Committees.
The petitioner, along with other doctors from Yashoda Hospitals, was arrayed as an opposite party before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Guntur. The complainant alleged medical negligence and deficiency in service during treatment at the hospital.
Filing an application under Section 17(4) before the Adjudicating Authority does not ipso facto permit the ED to retain the seized property unless it also complies with the requirements of Section 20. Failure to do so would amount to a violation of the express procedure established by law.
by Pritthish Roy* and Nancy Goel**
The present cause of action arose on 26-05-2025 when the plaintiff discovered that rogue websites were unlawfully streaming IPL 2025 matches without authorization. Given the plaintiff’s exclusive rights over such content, the plaintiff reasonably apprehends similar unlawful streaming during the upcoming India Tour of England 2025.
Calcutta High Court observed that the impugned order appears to have been issued in oversight of the directions issued in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273.
The defendants are websites that are making the plaintiff’s series/show available to the public without procuring any valid license or authorization from the plaintiff. These defendants’ websites unlawfully provide access to infringing content free of charge, without requiring users to register. The availability of such content is monetized through advertisements displayed on these platforms.
Sufficient time must be given to an arrestee after the grounds of arrest have been served upon him in writing, to enable the arrestee to engage and confer with legal counsel, the test being that the arrestee must have meaningful opportunity to resist his remand to police custody or judicial custody.
Calcutta High Court has taken suo motu cognizance of the vandalism at RG Kar Hospital, ordering the State to submit an affidavit with photographic evidence to ensure the crime scene remains intact.