Punjab and Haryana High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The investigating agency must instead rely on independent and lawful methods to gather information rather than pressuring the accused to act against their constitutional safeguards. Insisting on custodial interrogation solely for self-incriminatory purposes is unconstitutional and sets a dangerous precedent.”

Madras High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“We come across many such cases where people in the locality oppose the move of the authorities to locate the TASMAC shop or IMFL shop or license for selling such IMFL and in respect of those objections given by the public, especially the women folk, the answer given by the authorities is that the Rule is not violated.”

bombay high court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

In the words of Diplock LJ in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service, [1984] 3 WLR 1174, the Wednesbury principle, formulated by Lord Greene, is whether the decision is so outrageous in its defiance of law or logic that it cannot possibly be sustained.

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court observed that the canvass of Section 394 of the MMC Act, is quite broad to take within its ambit articles, trade, and operations, which are dangerous to life, and health or which are likely to create a nuisance, as quite extensively described in the provision.

Zila Parishad
Case BriefsSupreme Court

Given the existence of the unambiguous provision, Supreme Court held that the services rendered by primary teachers while in the service of the Zilla Parishad deserves to be counted towards their seniority after the transfer and merger of their services into the Pune Municipal Corporation

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Bombay High Court held that the Petitioner’s proposed project is for providing water for the citizens of Gorai village as the said project certainly falls under the permitted exceptions in the scheme of the things provided for CRZ as well as protection of mangroves.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

The High Court issued a contempt notice against an Advocate and a civic official, who acted on her request, after observing that a lawyer’s letter asking for a designated area within the Bombay High Court premises in Nagpur to feed dogs was for “publicity”.