Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment on, Supreme Court’s interference in concurrent findings of fact, dating back to the year 1954.
In the Judgment dated 12-09-2024, Supreme Court had held that an application for extension of time for passing an arbitral award under Section 29A (4) read with Section 29A (5) is maintainable even after the expiry of the twelve-month or the extended six-month period. The court, while adjudicating such extension applications will be guided by the principle of sufficient cause.
Supreme Court directed that the entire process of recounting of votes should be video-graphed, and the result of re-count to be signed by the parties, their counsel as well as the Court Commissioner, besides the Presiding Officer of the Election Tribunal.
The present appeal raises substantial questions about the legal framework governing the withdrawal of a CIRP; the settlement of claims after the admission of an application instituted by a debtor; and the scope of the inherent powers vested in the NCLAT under Rule 11 of the NCLAT Rules.
The Division Bench opined that in Section 498-A IPC cases, the courts have to be careful to identify instances of over implication and to avert the suffering of ignominy and inexpiable consequences.
Supreme Court affirmed that the cut-off date of 25 March 1971 is rational as on the said date, Pakistani Army launched Operation Search Light to curb Bengali nationalist movement in East Pakistan. The migrants before the operation were migrants of partition towards which India had a liberal policy. Migrants from Bangladesh after the said date were migrants of war and not partition.
by Akash Hogade†
Without making any observations on the merits at this stage, Allahabad Court granted three days’ time to the Chief Standing Counsel to obtain complete instructions. It instructed that the position regarding the category of the road and the applicable norms should be clarified at the next scheduled hearing.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment on, confession of co-accused, dating back to the year 1954.
“Orientation of these guidelines is to prioritise prevention before protection and protection before penalisation.”
Section 6A of the Citizenship Act, 1955, permits foreign migrants of Indian origin who entered Assam between 01-01-1966, and 25-03-1971, to apply for Indian citizenship. This provision was introduced in 1985 as part of the Assam Accord, an agreement between the Government of India and leaders of the Assam movement, which aimed to address the concerns over illegal immigration from Bangladesh
The new statue of ‘Lady Justice’ has been installed in the judges’ library of the Supreme Court, commissioned at the direction of Chief Justice DY Chandrachud.
Supreme Court clarified that till the date of communication of the order on the regularisation application, the limited interim relief granted on 6-08-2024 will continue to operate.
“It should be borne in mind that the RPwD Act which was enacted to give effect to the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities – was with the objective of granting persons with disabilities full and effective participation and inclusion in society, grant them equal opportunity and to show respect for their inherent dignity, individual autonomy including the freedom to make their own choices.”
“However strict the PMLA is, we have to operate within the four corners of the law. The law tells us that someone who is sick and infirm should be granted bail. The point that he can be treated in a government hospital is no answer to what the statute says.”
“Delay by the authorities, at times, may constitute a cause of action in itself. This would be especially true in a case of a live and continuing cause of action or in the event of failure to perform a mandatory statutory duty. It is, however, equally true that there can be cases where delay and laches would be fatal and can result in the dismissal of the writ petition.”
For such a legal misadventure resulting in the wastage of precious judicial time of the High Court, which could have been better spent answering the call of justice raised by the teeming millions, the Court imposed costs of Rs.1,20,000/- on the appellant.
Supreme Court said that the disciplinary proceedings against the Judicial Magistrate, have been initiated on the basis of a legally invalid order.