Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“If and only if, the service provider discharges its onus of showing that the service was availed, in fact for a commercial purpose, does the onus shift back to the complainant to show that the service was obtained exclusively for the purpose of earning its livelihood by means of self-employment.”
Justice Manoj Misra is the sitting judge of the Supreme Court of India. He was elevated to the Supreme Court in February 2023 and has formerly served as a Judge in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on limitation period of suit on possession of immovable property.
The Court exonerated the charges of contravention of prescribing non-refundable participation fee levied on Liquidator of Corporate Debtor, however, he was found guilty of paying excess fees to BDO Restructuring Advisory LLP.
Supreme Court directed the parties to maintain status quo regarding possession, change of land use, and creation of third-party rights till fresh acquisition proceedings are completed
Regulation 4 of the Gender Sensitization & Sexual Harassment of Women at the Supreme Court of India (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal), Regulations, 2013, provides for constitution of the Gender Sensitization & Internal Complaints Committee for sensitizing the public to gender issues and to address any complaints made with regard to sexual harassment at the Supreme Court precincts.
The plea was filed for repolling in several booths of the Munger Parliamentary constituency in Bihar.
“As long as ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ is applied in the manner as explained in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247, wherein both merit and seniority are considered, and merit plays the dominant role, the process of promotion cannot be said to be violative of the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’.”
Supreme Court noted that by its order dated 30-06-2016, the sentence was suspended, and bail was granted to the convict, as he had already undergone about nine years of sentence.
The Trade Mark Registry allowed the Form TM-24 Applications of the Electronica Hitech Machines Tools Private Limited for bringing on record their name as the subsequent proprietor. Electronica India Limited challenged the said purported order.
“One of the objects of the Chartered Accountants Act, is to ensure that the profession of the Chartered Accountant in the country maintains high professional ethics and renders quality service since Chartered Accountants are necessary for the efficient tax administration in the country”
“The requirement under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872 of confronting the witness by showing him the relevant part of his prior statement is to give the witness a chance to explain the contradiction and this is a rule of fairness.”
by Vasanth Rajasekaran† and Harshvardhan Korada††
Supreme Court reiterated that the laws of limitation only bar the remedy and do not extinguish the right, except in cases where title is acquired by prescription.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on relevance of entries in revenue records.
Looking into Justice Abhay S. Oka’s life, career and important judgments which have been instrumental in protecting the rights of marginalized communities and promoting freedom of expression, thereby making him a harbinger of social change and preserver of administrative accountability.
The application by ADR was filed considering the controversy surrounding the substantial increase in the final voter turnout announced by ECI for the first two phases of the Lok Sabha elections, 2024 as compared to initial estimate announced on the voting day.
“National security is always of paramount importance and any act in aid to any terrorist act — violent or non-violent is liable to be restricted.”
Hemant Soren was arrested on 31-01-2024 and resigned from the post of Chief Minister of Jharkhand on the same day.
While dismissing the review petitions, the Bench said that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and no case was made out for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.