Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, SA Nazeer and Hemant Gupta*, JJ has reiterated that the nomenclature under which the
“The rights of the aggrieved parties are being prejudiced if the reasons are not available to them to avail of the legal remedy of approaching the Court where the reasons can be scrutinized.”
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan*, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah, JJ has reiterated that an application by a
Supreme Court: Appreciating the presentation made by State of Chhattisgarh’s Standing Counsel Sumeer Sodhi by filing a Convenience Note, the 3-judge bench
Supreme Court: In a case where, for the enormous delay of 1697 days in filing, the Government said that there was a
by Karl Shroff*
Supreme Court: On the question relating to the power of the court to grant leave to defend in case of sham or
Orissa High Court: While deciding the issue that whether it would be proper to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner in
Tripura High Court: While deciding upon the present writ petition wherein the petitioner’s appointment in Group- D post was cancelled by the
Hyderabad High Court: In the instant appeal, the question arose that whether a counter-claim can be rejected in terms of Order
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr. DY Chandrachud, JJ, explaining the principles governing the
Supreme Court: Taking Suo Motu cognizance in respect of inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials, the bench of S.A. Bobde and L.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In the instant case filed for the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants under Sections 498-A
Supreme Court: In the case where the review petition preferred in 2012, was kept pending for almost four years and, thereafter, the