Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Calcutta High Court acknowledged the delay but emphasised that delay cannot deprive an individual of legitimate claims arising from expropriation.
The Supreme Court observed that an owner of land may not have an absolute and unqualified right which is the idea which not unnaturally comes to mind when the idea of ownership is under consideration.
The Supreme Court has directed ONGC and State to either comply with the Gujarat High Court's order directing the permanent acquisition of land by ONGC on or before 26.04.2023 or face necessary consequences.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on Unmarried persons’ right to safe abortion, Inclusion of ‘marital rape’ under Abortion laws, Journalist Sidhique Kappan’s bail; Constitution Bench’s opinion on Doctrine of Precedents; Reference of question relating to Pre-sentence hearing of death row convicts; Explainers on important law points; Collegium Recommendation; and more
“The Improvement Trust behaved as if it had some superior right to appropriate the property of the owners without paying for it contrary to the mandate of the LA Act.”
“The State being a welfare State governed by the rule of law, cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the statute”
Unmissable Stories Sedition Law under scanner| All pending cases to be kept in abeyance; Centre/States urged not to register fresh cases till
Supreme Court: In a case where the bench of S. Ravindra Bhat* and PS Narsimha, JJ was posed with the question as
112 significant Reports from 22 High Courts Allahabad High Court Right to Reputation People using cyberspace to vent out anger and
Supreme Court: In a case where the inquiry under Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was dispensed with despite there
“Indian law leans towards legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy. The presumption in law of legitimacy of a child cannot be lightly repelled.”
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of S.V. Gangapurwala and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ., expressed that, In a welfare State, statutory authorities
“Right to property is still a constitutional right under Article 300A of the Constitution of India though not a fundamental right. The deprivation of the right can only be in accordance with the procedure established by law.”
Madras High Court: N. Seshasayee, J., said that if the allegations made in the present petition were true then it exposes the callousness
Jharkhand High Court: Rajesh Shankar, J., quashing the impugned letter, held, “The respondent 5 being an administrative/revenue Officer is supposed to know
“The courts’ role is to act as the guarantor and jealous protector of the people’s liberties: be they assured through the freedoms, and the right to equality and religion or cultural rights under Part III, or the right against deprivation, in any form, through any process other than law.”
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Arun Mishra, SA Nazeer and MR Shah, JJ has held that daughters have right in coparcenary
Supreme Court: The bench of Indira Banjerjee and Indu Malhotra, JJ that the Courts are duty bound to issue a writ of
Supreme court: The 2-judge bench of Indira Banerjee and Indu Malhotra, JJ has held that Section 88 of Maharashtra Regional and Town
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Manmohan and Sanjeev Narula, JJ., addressed a Public Interest Litigation, filed seeking direction to respondents to