Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Family Court had dismissed respondent-mother’s application for restoration of custody, by recording findings contrary to the material placed before it and inconsistent with the Karnataka High Court’s express order modifying the visitation arrangement.
Supreme Court dismissed the SLP challenging interim protection granted to contractual Junior Engineers, permitting them to continue in service on the same terms and conditions pending the High Court’s decision on regularization.
The Court held that the mere existence of environmental degradation is insufficient. A causal connection between the conduct of the alleged polluter and the environmental damage must be established.
The present proceeding initially concerned with a narrow question as to whether the vehicle stated to have caused a motor accident was in fact the vehicle involved in the accident, however, subsequently revealed a much wider concern regarding fraudulent motor accident claims in a recurring and organised pattern.
Supreme Court cancels bail of Accused 3 and 4 in the Satara murder case, holding that repeated threats, prior preparation and carrying petrol indicated a pre-planned attack.
The Court held that once the wife had voluntarily relinquished all monetary claims, including maintenance, revival of such claims through subsequent proceedings cannot be permitted.
Supreme Court held that Section 12, Gangsters Act does not require other criminal trials to be kept in abeyance, but only gives priority to Gangsters Act proceedings where there is a clash of dates.
The three-day Special Lok Adalat under SAMADHAN SAMAROH 2026 listed 3,285 cases and settled/disposed of 1,664 cases, with 48 additional cases resolved through mediation, taking the total disposals to 1,712.
The Court held that considering the parties’ status, the father’s admitted income and the needs of the 2 school-going daughters, maintenance of ₹60,000 per month was just and reasonable.
The Court observed that both parties had “occupied the time of the Bar Council of India, a High Court and this Court for eleven years”, time, it noted, “that belonged to other litigants, waiting for reliefs they genuinely need.”
The Court accepted that determining the basis of pecuniary jurisdiction is within the domain of the law-making body.
Justice K. Vinod Chandran, J., held that 3 years’ practice at the Bar is essential before entry into the judicial service, as practical courtroom experience cannot be adequately substituted by a structured training programme, and therefore found no ground to review the earlier judgment.
More than 600 cases were listed for settlement before 16 Special Lok Adalat Benches of the Supreme Court on the first day of the Special Lok Adalat, with over 400 cases being amicably settled through dialogue between the parties.
The Court held that “a stipulation mandating the deposit of a substantial percentage of the claim amount, as a precondition to invoking arbitration would inevitably suppress claims, deter recourse to alternative dispute resolution, and thereby defeat its very object”.
Hailing from Garli, India’s first heritage village, 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 6 February 2023.
Supreme Court modified the 3-year Bar practice requirement for recruitment as Civil Judge (Junior Division), introducing a transitional regime for fresh law graduates and prescribing 1 year of actual practice, followed by structured judicial training and Law Clerkship, for subsequent recruitments.
In separate interactions, CJI Surya Kant discussed the vision and objectives behind the initiative, while Justice P.S. Narasimha explained its implementation, the role of mediation and the need to institutionalise the process for long-term dispute resolution.
The Supreme Court, by order dated 9 May 2014 in Subrata Chattoraj v. Union of India, (2014) 8 SCC 795, had directed the transfer of investigation into the Saradha Chit Fund Scam and other chit fund cases from the State Police to the CBI.
Supreme Court held that the contents of documents already excluded from evidence cannot be introduced through oral testimony, while upholding the Bombay High Court’s redaction and imposing ₹10 lakh costs on RIL.
The Court held that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal committed a manifest error in granting only ₹5000 to the wife and not awarding any parental consortium to the children.