Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 provides the legal framework for challenging an arbitral award before a court, while Section 37 governs appeals against specific orders passed under the Act, including those made under Section 34.
The High Court had directed that all the candidates who participated in CLAT UG 2025 with respect to the Sets ‘B’, ‘C’ & ‘D’ of question papers shall, as a consequence, be granted the marks indicated against the said question.
The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to withdraw the pleas and raise additional grounds as impleaders/intervenors in the ongoing hearing of the main case listed next week.
by Milind Sharma*, Abhisaar Bairagi** and Ausaf Ayyub***
The Commandant with Border Security Force (BSF) was denied promotion to the post of Deputy Inspector General from the date his juniors were promoted.
In the matter at hand, the accused was an Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, and caused wrongful loss in excess of Rs. 13.66 crore to the Government exchequer by changing the terms and conditions of the Detailed Notice Inviting Tender.
Earlier, the Court stayed his arrest in two FIRs registered in Maharashtra and Assam, subject to his cooperation in the investigation, while barring him from doing any further shows.
“It appears that the State of Haryana has not paid any attention to our order dated 3-1-2025 nor has looked into the representation filed by the petitioner”
“In the interest of justice, equity, and the welfare of the child, we deem it appropriate to grant visitation rights to the wife so that she may gradually rebuild a bond with her daughter.”
Formerly a Judge of Kerala High Court and Chief Justice of Patna High Court, Justice K. Vinod Chandran was appointed as Judge of Supreme Court in January 2025.
“When an appeal against conviction is preferred before the High Court, at the earliest stage, the High Court must examine whether there is a proper statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 of CrPC (Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).”
The original judgment of the Special Court convicted and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years on the convict. However, the convict had already undergone eleven years of actual sentence.
The Court further held that in order to meet the ends of justice and with a view to ensure that public interest is safeguarded and to give effect to the salutary object behind the enactment of the NDPS Act, the decision in Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014) 13 SCC 1, must be given retrospective application.
“Effective resettlement of ex-servicemen is necessary to keep the morale of the serving members of the defence forces. If the resettlement of veterans is neglected, the talented youth of the nation may not be motivated to join armed forces.”
“Homebuyers and developers have not always been the best of friends. Instances are innumerable where the two have been at daggers drawn. This case presents one such instance”
In the present case, the Supreme Court examined the vagaries of IP law and the intrinsic synergy that exists between two independent legislations, namely the Designs Act and the Copyright Act.
“Once it is accepted that the DSP post in question was reserved for ‘SC Sports (Women)’ as per advertisement, the appellant must be accepted as the only person qualified in her category who could be appointed. This is because she is the only SC woman candidate who successfully cleared all the tests for the post of DSP.”
The High Courts should direct for CBI investigation only in cases where material prima facie discloses something calling for an investigation by CBI and it should not be done in a routine manner or on the basis of some vague allegations. The “ifs” and “buts” without any definite conclusion are not sufficient to put an agency like CBI into motion.
“The incident is of the year 2014 and any further litigation, will only prolong the suffering of both the parties, who are living their own separate lives”
“There is a clear distinction between the Avoidance Applications that may be filed by the Resolution Professional in view of Section 25(2)(j), for avoidance of transactions in accordance with Chapter III of the IBC, and the applications that may be filed in respect of the fraudulent trading or wrongful trading under Section 66, which falls under Chapter VI of the IBC.”