Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that while prosecuting offences arising out of the alleged sale or use of Chinese manjha, a Magistrate must record reasons demonstrating application of mind before taking cognizance and issuing summons.
“The complainant is not a person aggrieved when he or she informs the High Court to act against the erring Judge for his judicial decision, and the role of the complainant comes to an end with the complaint being referred to the High Court.”
“Recording of reasons in orders is equally important as giving an opportunity of hearing. The reasons in order means link between material which the forum considered while reaching the conclusion and reveals a rational nexus between the two.”
“A decision-maker is insisted on recording reason in support of his decision to ensure transparency in decision-making process. When any order is subject to appeal or amenable to judicial review, then such order must be reasoned and speaking order.”
Allahabad High Court noted that the penalty order does not appear to bring out any conduct of the petitioner as may indicate or establish collusion between the petitioner and the importing dealer.
The Supreme Court held that the critical views of the Media One News Channel on Government policies cannot be termed ‘anti-establishment’ as the use of such a terminology in itself, represents an expectation that the press must support the establishment.
Observing that the sealed cover procedure violates both principles of natural justice and open justice, the Supreme Court has held that the public interest immunity proceeding is a less restrictive means to deal with non-disclosure on the grounds of public interest and confidentiality.
Any irregularity or illegality in the remand order is not a statutorily sanctioned reason for grant of default bail
Rajasthan High Court: In a case where NOC was cancelled by Commissioner, Commissionerate College Education and Technical Education Department, (‘Respondent 2′) granted
The bench of GS Singhvi and AK Ganguly, JJ, in Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496,
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 Division Bench of M.R. Shah B.V. Nagarathna*, JJ., cancelled the bail order of the High Court against the person
Supreme Court: The 3-judge Bench comprising of L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai and B.V. Nagarathna*, JJ., held that though it is not
Supreme Court: Explaining the scope of Section 51 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, the bench of MR Shah* and BV Nagarathna,
“Giving reasons for the conclusion is necessary as it helps the adversely affected party to understand why his submissions were not accepted.”
Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Raghvendra Singh Chauhan, CJ. and Narayan Singh Dhanik, J. decided on a petition which was
Supreme Court: In a case where Rajasthan High Court had granted bail by merely “keeping in view the facts and circumstances of
Supreme Court: In a case where the Gujarat High Court had stayed the arrest a person accused for offences under sections 376(2)(F),
“Wider the power, greater is the necessity of caution while exercise of judicious discretion”;
“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.”