Read why Supreme Court upheld Calcutta High Court Order directing NIA probe in WB Ram Navami Violence
Six first information reports were registered by the Police over the Ram Navami violence in the State of West Bengal.
Six first information reports were registered by the Police over the Ram Navami violence in the State of West Bengal.
This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1951 on breach of contract.
Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira were charged with several offences under IPC and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and they were alleged to have played an active role in recruitment of and training for cadres of the Communist Party of India (Maoist).
The Court explained that the power to special leave is an exceptional and overriding power, naturally it must be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in very exceptional situations. It will only be used to advance the cause of justice and its exercise will be governed by well-established principles.
Earlier, the Bombay High Court had denied the plea of Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira.
Supreme Court further made it clear that no further extension of tenure would be granted for SK Mishra.
The Supreme Court said that due consideration must be given to the facts which are suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offences alleged against an accused.
The alleged non-compliance with statutory and Election Commission mandated regulations, and their legal effect, cannot be examined through a summary proceeding under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, or even under Order XII Rule 6, CPC.
The Court directed the States and Union Territories to submit their responses positively by 31-08-2023.
Supreme Court said that once there is no eyewitness of the incident, the prosecution will have to establish a motive for the commission of the crime because in a case of no direct evidence, motive has a major role.
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition against the Varanasi District Court’s Order wherein ASI was directed to undertake scientific survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque to find out whether the same was constructed over a pre-existing structure of Hindu Temple.
The Supreme Court called the matter at hand a classic case in which a litigant had been able to mislead the Courts and authorities at different levels to put life into his stale claim.
This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1951 on whether the property acquired through invalid adoption, will be considered as joint family property.
Supreme Court also issued notice on a separate transfer petition filed by the producer of the film for transferring the proceedings of the movie in different High Courts to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court was hearing Rahul Gandhi’s plea challenging Gujarat High Court’s order dismissing his application to stay two years conviction Order.
The Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (Amendment) Ordinance, 2023 was promulgated just eight days after the Constitution Bench had decided on the issue of administrative control over transfers and postings of civil servants in the NCTD.
The Bench led by CJI Dr D.Y. Chandrachud directed the Central and State government to inform the steps taken against the perpetrators in the instant matter.
Supreme Court regarded the result of ossification or bone test in the instant matter, as the most authentic evidence for being corroborated by the examining doctor as well.