From the aforesaid, it can be seen that the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court is a cryptic, nonspeaking order. We find no independent application of mind by the High Court on the legality and validity of the order passed by the learned Magistrate summoning the accused. The learned Magistrate issued the summons against the accused after considering the statements of the complainant as well as the witnesses recorded under Sections 200 & 202 Cr.P.C. and after considering the evidence on record including the injury certificate.
Union of India and others Vs. Vasavi Co-op. Housing Society Ltd-2014-POSSESSION AND TITLE- A family settlement is based generally on the assumption that there was an antecedent title of some kind in the purchase and the arrangement acknowledges and defines what that title was. In a family settlement-cum-partition, the parties may define the shares in the joint property and may either choose to divide the property by metes and bounds or may continue to live together and enjoy the property as common.
Mandatory Vaccination-We are also of the opinion that information relating to adverse effects following immunisation is crucial for creating awareness around vaccines and their efficacy, apart from being instrumental in further scientific studies around the pandemic.
the courts need to pass a reasoned order in every case which must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion.
Dr. Pankaj Kumudchandra Phadnis Vs. Union of India Ministry of Law and Justice-Criminal cases which result in conviction and even execution of death sentences and the demise of those who have served life sentences ought not to be reviewed, neither is there a provision in law for review.
It is said that Gandhi gave us Independence in 1947. This is totally false. In fact by regularly preaching Hindu religious ideas like Ramraj, goraksha ( cow protection ), varnashram ( caste system ), brahmacharya ( celibacy ) etc in open public meetings, and thus constantly injecting religion into politics, he was driving Muslims towards a fundamentalist organization like the Muslim League-Katju
That the requirement of law as being envisaged under Section 19 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008(hereinafter being referred to as "Act 2008") mandates that the trial under the Act of any offence by a Special Court shall be held on daytoday basis on all working days and have precedence over the trial of any other case and Special Courts are to be designated for such an offence by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court as contemplated under Section 11 of the Act 2008 but the ground realities are totally different as in the instant case, after the chargesheets came to be filed way back in 2012, the charges have been framed after 7 years of filing of the chargesheet on 20th June, 2019.
On Diwali days or on any other festivals like Gurupurab, etc., when such fireworks generally take place, it would strictly be from 8.00 p.m. till 10.00 p.m. only. On Christmas eve and New Year's eve, when such fireworks start around midnight i.e. 12.00 a.m., it would be from 11.55 p.m. till 12.30 a.m. only.
It must however be clarified that every Journalist will be entitled to protection in terms of Kedar Nath Singh, as every prosecution under Sections 124A and 505 of the IPC3 must be in strict conformity with the scope and ambit of said Sections as explained in, and completely in tune with the law laid down in Kedar Nath Singh.
WB-HIRA is repugnant to the RERA, and is hence unconstitutional. We also hold and declare that as a consequence of the declaration by this Court of the invalidity of the provisions of WB-HIRA, there shall be no revival of the provisions of the WB 1993 Act, since it would stand impliedly repealed upon the enactment of the RERA. Hence, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142, we direct that the striking down of WB-HIRA will not affect the registrations, sanctions and permissions previously granted under the legislation prior to the date of this judgment
whether an Advocate on Record can have entry in Advocate On Record register in the form of his style of carrying on profession i.e. instead of “Siddharth Murarka” as “Law Chambers of Siddharth Murarka”?.
Hitesh Verma vs The State of Uttarakhand & Anr (05-11-2020) - Offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.
Bathina Ramakrishna Reddy Versus State of Madras- When the act of defaming a Judge is calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or proper administration of law, it would certainly amount to contempt. The offence of contempt is really a wrong done to the public by weakening the authority and influence of Courts of law which exist for their good.
Vineeta Sharma Vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors.- By overruling Prakash & Ors. v. Phulavati & Ors., (2016) 2 SCC 36[ Two judges bench]. Danamma @ Suman Surpur & Anr. v. Amar & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 343[Two judges bench] a Three Judges Bench of Supreme Court held (i) The provisions contained in substituted Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after amendment in the same manner as son with same rights and liabilities. (ii) The rights can be claimed by the daughter born earlier with effect from 9.9.2005 with savings as provided in Section 6(1) as to the disposition or alienation, partition or testamentary disposition which had taken place before 20th day of December, 2004.
Janhit Abhiyan Vs. Union of India & Ors-A backward class cannot be determined only and exclusively with reference to economic criterion. Petitioners have also pleaded that the reservation of ten per cent of vacancies, in available vacancies/posts, in open competition on the basis of economic criterion will exclude all other classes of those above the demarcating line of such ten per cent seats.It is further pleaded that reservation in unaided institutions violates the fundamental right under under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.