Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The issue is not related to the ‘title of the property’ but for the claim of fundamental right of worship or prayer and if the ‘disputed area’ is held to be a ‘protected monument’ under the provisions of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, the bar under the Places of Worship Act, 1991 would not apply.”
“Every order issued by the Princely Ruler survives as law only when it goes through the test as prescribed under the Constitution, thus, the Ailan of 1935 was merely an executive or administrative arrangement and not a legislative enactment and the ASI report establishes a pre-existing temple structure, whose remains form the base of the present monument.”
“The religious character of the “disputed area” of Bhojshala Complex and Kamal Maula Mosque was held to be a Temple of Goddess Vagdevi (Saraswati) in the light of provisions of Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 and Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991.”
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on suit for specific performance, dating back to the year 1953.
Supreme Court was quick to clarify that if prosecution was unable to prove its case on its own legs, then it won’t be able to derive advantage from the weakness of the defence and the Court would not be able to convict the accused on the strength of the evidence in the form of reply to the suggestions made by the defence counsel to a witness.
Strange state of affairs; Neither investigating authority prepared rough map nor Trial Court took pain in recording correct directions for want of evidence
The Delhi High Court quashes and sets aside summons issued to the editor and deputy editor of “The Wire” in a criminal defamation case filed by the former Professor of Jawaharlal Nehru University.
Supreme Court: In a case where an appeal was filed against the decree of the trial Judge holding that the
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi: In a case wherein it is alleged that the accused committed the offence punishable under
Madras High Court: Senthil Kumar Ramamoorthy, J. remarked that a suit cannot be summarily decreed at the instance of a plaintiff unless
Chhattisgarh High Court: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J. while allowing a writ petition, quashed the order of removal from service passed against the petitioner.