The Karnataka High Court strictly admonished the petitioner for abusing every jurisdiction of law but refused to impose exemplary costs as the same would only increase the agony of the petitioner, whose marriage was annulled albeit with consent.
Supreme Court observed that the persons from marginalised sections of the society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital, and a new disability more often than not compounds to such discrimination.
The Delhi High Court observed that a law student shall not represent a party or provide legal counsel in any legal proceeding before a court of law before being properly enrolled by a bar council and being admitted to the bar.
On 10.05.2019, a division Bench had observed that the question with regard to the actual stage at which the trial is said to have concluded is required to be authoritatively considered since the power under Section 319 of CrPC is extraordinary in nature.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on constitutionality of EWS Quota and dissent; Juvenility of Kathua gangrape-murder accused; acquittal of all Chhawla gangrape-murder accused; why Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts were set free, and more. It also covers reports on Justice Chandrachud’s appointment as the 50th CJI and his to-do-list; CJI UU Lalit’s retirement; explainers on important law points; some Never Reported Judgments; and career trajectory and important decision of Justice BR Gavai.
Gauhati High Court: While deciding this interesting writ petition praying for the issuance of the writ of Mandamus directing to
Supreme Court: In an interesting question raised before it that compelled the bench of Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath*, JJ to reserve
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petition wherein the Court was faced with the issue
“The scenario is that any order or judgment passed by this Court becomes a reportable exercise to create more volumes of reported cases! This thus has a possibility at times of causing some confusion on the legal principles prevalent.”
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia*, JJ has held that a counter claim under
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 12-12-2018 passed by the Additional
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant appeal wherein substantial questions of law were raised vis-a-vis SectionS 80,
Supreme Court: In a case where the single bench of JK Maheshwari, J was posed with the question as to whether the
Supreme Court: In case relating to court fees, the bench of Dinesh Maheshwari and Vikram Nath*, JJ had the occasion to explains
Supreme Court: In a trade mark infringement case where interlocutory injunction was sought during the pendency of the suit, the bench of
Supreme Court: In the case where the division bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed a review petition by merely stating that
Supreme Court: The bench of Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari*, JJ has explained the law relating to grant of unconditional leave to
Supreme Court: Reminding the Courts of the importance of hierarchy of Courts, the bench of Sanjay Kishan Kaul and MM Sundresh*, JJ
Supreme Court: In a case where the party, in a subsequent petition seeking same relief, had not disclosed the filing of the
Supreme Court: After noticing common deficiencies which occur in the course of criminal trials and certain practices adopted by trial courts in