Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The case of fake signatures came before the Court, when the petitioner approached the Court in person, stating that he did not know either of the Advocates who were appearing on his behalf and that he came to know of the SLP filed in his name, when the Police Station served notice upon him.
The Court found that insofar as Section 406, IPC was concerned, no cognizable offence was visible on the face of the record. Furthermore, charges under S. 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act were not made out either, against the appellants
,
“Whether the writ Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or not will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, it is to be noted that a common thread in all the judgments relating to the custody of minor children is the paramount welfare of the child.”
The Court has affirmed the power of the Arbitrator to grant pre-reference, pendente lite, and post-award interest on the rationale that a person who has been deprived of the use of money to which he is legitimately entitled has a right to be compensated for the same.
“All insults or intimidations to a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe will not amount to an offence under the Act, 1989 unless such insult or intimidation is on the ground that the victim belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.”
“Article 21 being a higher constitutional right, statutory provisions should align themselves to the said higher constitutional edict”
“For cheating, criminal intention is necessary at the time of making a false or misleading representation i.e., since inception. In criminal breach of trust, mere proof of entrustment is sufficient. Thus, in case of criminal breach of trust, the offender is lawfully entrusted with the property, and he dishonestly misappropriated the same. Whereas, in cheating, the offender fraudulently or dishonestly induces a person by deceiving him to deliver any property.”
Vide notification dated 01-07-2024, the Ministry of Ayush amended Drug Rules, 1945, omitting Rule 170.
The CBI and the ED have claimed that K. Kavitha was involved in the exchange of bribes and money laundering in connection with the Delhi Excise Policy
The victim’s family alleged that was in police custody for nine days but after being released on bail, he had died of renal failure.
In the matter at hand, the Division Bench of High Court upheld a detention order, which was quashed by a coordinate Bench of the same High Court, based on same grounds and material relied.
The Court emphasised that every State organ, and particularly the wings of the Government associated with environment protection, such as the CECB, must be even more diligent in ensuring timely compliance with the directions of the NGT.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on suit for specific performance, dating back to the year 1953.
The victim was allegedly gangraped by Narain and other co-accused persons when she approached them for a job.
Hailing from Kangra district’s Garli, the first heritage village of India, Justice Sanjay Karol served his parent High Court of Himachal Pradesh as Acting Chief Justice and High Courts of Tripura and Patna as Chief Justice before his elevation as a Supreme Court Judge on 06-02-2023.
by Aditya Mukherjee* and Jayati Sinha**
In the earlier order, the Supreme Court directed CBI to file a status report on the progress in the investigation of the crime at RG Kar Medical College Hospital on 22-08-2024. The State of West Bengal was also directed to file a status report by 22-08-2024 on the progress of the investigation on the acts of vandalism which took place at the Hospital in the aftermath of the incident.
Supreme Court said that the reservation for the Persons with disabilities has been treated as Horizontal Reservation i.e. the reservation under Clause (1) of Article 16, and not the Vertical reservation i.e. the reservation under Clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
The Court took serious note of distortions in the chargesheet vis-a-vis attributing certain statements to the protected witness, which he did not make, stating that NIA owes an explanation, and the investigating machinery must be fair.
“In the event, the candidates who were already appointed on the basis of results of the main examination conducted in September, 2016, if successful in the re-conducted main examination in terms of this order, they would be given continuity of service and consequential benefits upon being appointed against the concerned posts.”- Supreme Court’s direction