Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court stated that the appellant was 90 years old, and it was difficult to accept that he would be effectively running his business. It was fairly conceded by him that he had children, and he did not file any document to show that he was purchasing any goods from anybody to sell them at his shop.
The Court also directed the IMC to file an action report in this regard, mentioning the data on the sterilization of stray dogs along with an affidavit of a senior officer.
The Court noted that the State’s report did not mention the complete afforestation area and the number of trees that could be accommodated there. Further, a part of that area was adjacent to a city forest, i.e., trees already existed there.
“It is not expected from a Judicial Officer of the Appellate Court to pass such a short, cryptic and non-speaking order without going into the merits of the case, discussing the evidence, and testing the reasoning given by the Trial Court.”
The forwarded message allegedly included assertions relating to ancient rituals, such as claims that consuming beef was essential to being a good Hindu, bull sacrifices and meat consumption were obligatory on certain occasions, Brahmins regularly consumed bovine meat, and cows and bulls were allegedly slaughtered in various religious ceremonies.
At the outset, the Court remarked that the subject case was one of the most shocking cases in the medical history where as many as 30 children died by alleged consumption of the Coldrif cold syrup.
The Court directed that no tree shall be cut, pruned or transplanted in any manner in Madhya Pradesh except with the prior permission of the Committee constituted by the NGT and the Tree Officer concerned till the next date of hearing.
“The respondents’ refusal to provide minimal dietary flexibility or safe insulin storage, both of which petitioner volunteered to manage at his own cost, constitutes denial of reasonable accommodation and hence discrimination per se. Even otherwise, Type-1 diabetes is not a recognized disability; therefore, exclusion of the petitioner on this ground is arbitrary and discriminatory.”
The Court remarked that when the other party opposes the prayer for divorce despite their being no possibility of them living together, such conduct of party deriving pleasure from difficulties and tension of the other party also amounts to cruelty.
“The husband married the wife of his own volition through social media, and if household habits or lifestyle preferences were material factors to him, they could have been ascertained before marriage.”
“It appears that anyone at any point of time can get a date of birth certificate issued with whichever date they want from wherever in the State.”
“Giving institutional preference in the first round would most likely entail filling up all the postgraduate seats from the institutional candidates who have qualified for MBBS from colleges within MP, as the number of postgraduate seats is far less than MBBS seats.”
“Clearly, it appears that respondents are not interested in protecting or transplanting any tree but are, in a rampant manner, cutting and destroying the entire vegetation that is coming in the way of alleged development.”
“The value of human life does not vary with the category of ticket purchased. Every passenger, irrespective of class, is entitled to the same standard of safety, care, and vigilance from the Railways.”
“The corpus is a bright child and wishes to pursue her studies and even attend civil services examination.”
“The offences alleged relate to illegal hunting of a protected wildlife species have serious implications for wildlife preservation and ecological balance. Such offences affect public interest at large and must be dealt with sternly.”
“If crossing railway tracks is accessible or easy even for a three years old child, it implies a systemic failure of the Railway to restrict access.”
Upon perusal of the status report filed by the Amicus Curiae, the Court held that despite the order passed by the Court, sufficient action had not been taken by the authorities to prevent recurrence of similar incidents.
Umang Singhar filed the present petition because the disqualification petition was not yet decided by the Speaker since June 2025.
“We are surprised and shocked by the way the Family Court has taken the matter under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC and given a relief to the husband, which was liable to be given only after framing the issues and recording the evidence.”