CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST LAW NEWS
1. In the case of Ankan Tilak Paul vs State of Tripura and ors., a bench of Chief Justice Indrajit Mohanty and Justice SG Chattopadhyay of Tripura High Court directed the Agartala Municipal Corporation (AMC) to not allow the sale of meat products in public places and streets. Full Story
2. The Delhi Court in State vs Baby rejected the bail plea of a 55-year-old woman accused of the assault of a 20-year-old woman who was smeared with black ink and paraded in broad daylight in the national capital. The Additional Sessions Judge, Sanjeev Kumar Malhotra of Karkardooma court further stated that the “shameful” incident occurred in a busy residential area, yet nobody came forward to rescue the victim, which is a “black spot” on our society. Full Story
3. On a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) filed by young lawyers Ajit Deshpande, Akshay Desai, and others seeking a stipend of ₹5,000 per month, the Bombay High Court has issued notice to the Bar Council of Maharashtra. The plea stated that junior lawyers have been severely affected economically by the COVID-19 pandemic and the accompanying lockdown. Full Story
4. The case of Jai Nrain vs the State of Punjab arose when a married woman and a man who were living together in a live-in relationship voluntarily were facing threats from the family of women. The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently granted police protection to a married woman and her live-in partner, stating that it was its fundamental duty to guard their lives. Justice Anoop Chitkara explained that every person in India had an inherent fundamental right to life flowing from Article 21, which the State was bound to protect. Full Story
5. Mumbai special court has sentenced a 33-year-old man to three years of rigorous imprisonment after finding him guilty of molesting a minor girl and her visually impaired aunt on a local train in the case of State of Maharashtra vs Mohsin Allauddin Chougule. The court further observed that unwelcome, inappropriate touch by the male accused in the journey via public transport is a very common sexual assault, but almost all such assaults go unreported. Full Story
1. A case has been filed against actor-filmmaker Mahesh Manjrekar and others under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) in relation to their film “Varan Bhaat Loncha Kon Nay Koncha”, reportedly containing sexually explicit content involving children in the Bombay High Court. The court has denied grand protection to the respondents under this case. Full Story
2. The petition, Kishor Sohoni in the case of Kishor Ramesh Sohoni vs Union of India & Ors., had deposited the amount authorised by the court, in cash, with the police station, pursuant to court orders, prior to demonetisation. The Bombay High Court recently directed the Reserve Bank of India to replace a man’s demonetised notes worth Rs 1.6 lakh with new and valid currency notes. Full Story
3. In the case of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs Union of Indian and Ors., a public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Delhi High Court seeking a direction to the Delhi government to prohibit the production, distribution and consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs in the national capital. Full Story
4. In the case of Hemalatha vs Venkatesh, the Karnataka High Court has held that the properties given as dowry or otherwise at the time of marriage of the daughter will be included at the time of partition and also when the daughter files suit for partition. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Shri Babuji Rawji Shah vs S.Hussain held that mere hurting of sensibility is not defamation if by that defamation the character or credit of a person does not lessen. Full Story
2. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harbhajan Sadhu vs the State of Punjab held that to establish an offence of abetment of suicide under section 306 of IPC, a suicide note with the name of the accused is not sufficient. Full Story
3. The Calcutta High Court in Ashoke Ghosh vs State of West Bengal held that non-examination of minor who is in the custody of the accused does not adversely affect the prosecution’s case. Naturally, the child is prone to tutoring and is unsafe for the prosecution to choose him as a witness. Full Story
4. The Allahabad High Court in Pratiksha Singh and Another vs the State of UP held that a major person has the right to live with anyone of his choice. If the age of the married boy is not above 21 years, it will not make the marriage void. Full Story
1. In the case of Dr Vikram Sampath v Dr Audrey Truschke and Ors, the single judge bench of Delhi High Court has ordered Twitter to take down the five tweets posted by historian Audrey Truschke against historian Vikram Sampath in which Truschke had alleged plagiarism by Sampath in relation to his works on Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Full Story
2. An advocate, Shakti Khaitan wrote a letter to the Chief Justice Prakash Shrivastava of the Calcutta High Court stating that the lawyers wearing headgear in courts goes against the Bar Council of India Rules. The letter was seeking directions on the administrative side banning lawyers from wearing headgear, veils or other articles of faith in the premises of the High Court. Full Story
3. In the case of Manual vs the State of Kerala, the Kerala High Court has ruled that the admin of a WhatsApp group cannot be held vicariously liable if a member of the group posts objectionable content in the group. The court also recalled that it is the basic principle of criminal jurisprudence that mens rea must be an ingredient of an offence, and both the act and intent must be present in order to constitute a crime. Full Story
4. In the case of Sankar Mondal v State of West Bengal, the Supreme Court observed that however genuine the grievance may be, but the candidate cannot approach for redressal in a recruitment process. The court further said that the appellant waiting for seven long years for getting an appointment letter and then filing an OA before the State Administrative Tribunal was itself a ground to non-suit the appellant. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Horticulture Experiment Station Gonikoppal Coorg vs Regional Provident Fund Organization held that mens rea or actus reus is not an essential element for imposing a penalty for breaching civil obligations. Full Story
2. The Gujarat High Court in J. vs the State of Gujarat directed the Director-General of Police to ensure that all the police stations must have a panel of lawyers who can aid the victims of sexual assault. They must get proper guidance for legal representation. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Gayatri Prasad Prajapati vs State of Uttar Pradesh held that a writ petition filed under Article 32 to quash criminal proceedings cannot be entertained by the court. Full Story
4. The Delhi High Court in Mohd. Ajazur Rahman vs Union of India and Ors. held that “Law is nothing but the desire of the people. And legislature being the law-making body represents that desire. Legislature cannot be forced to bring in force the enacted law. It is in their (parliament’s) wisdom to bring in force the enacted law. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in X (minor) vs State of Jharkhand and Anr. held that a love affair between the minor victim and accused is not a relevant ground for getting bail. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Shrikant G. Mantri vs Punjab National Bank held that pure business-to-business disputes cannot be called out as consumer disputes. To come within the meaning of consumer, services availed should be exclusive to earn his livelihood by self-employment. Full Story
3. The Bombay High Court in Mansoorali Khan Ahmed Khan vs the State of Maharashtra held that confession made to a stranger cannot be accepted. Extra-judicial confession made to a stranger cannot be the basis of conviction. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in TRL Krosaki Refractories Ltd. vs SMS Asia Private Limited held that where the complainant is a company, an authorised employee can represent the company on its behalf. Filing by a company or on its behalf is sufficient for the court to take cognizance. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Authority For Clarification And Advance Ruling vs Aakavi Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. held that when the literal interpretation of a provision results in what the legislature never intended, then the court must depart from the plain language and modify it to achieve the intention of the legislature. Full Story
2. A plea for enforcement of fundamental duties has been filed in Durga Dutt vs UOI, in which the Supreme Court said that every citizen must learn to respect the institutions of the country. All people must comply with certain basic norms of democratic conduct and behaviour. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Kishor Madhukar Pinglikar vs Automotive Research Association of India held that mere presence of some public function or duty on a body does not make it fall under the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution. Full Story
4. The CBI Court in Doranda Treasury Case related to fodder scam of Rs. 139 crores has sentenced Lalu Yadav, the former Union Minister and Chief Minister of Bihar, to five years imprisonment and directed him to pay a fine of Rs. 60 lakhs. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Hotel Priya A Proprietorship vs the State of Maharashtra held that imposing a gender cap on the number of men and women who can perform in licensed orchestras and bars is unconstitutional. The court said that in the guise of protection, it restricts women’s choice. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Universal Petro Chemicals Ltd vs BP PLC and Others held that if the plaintiff has not specifically claimed for damages in the plea instead of specific performance, then the court shall not grant compensation. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in K. Kumara Gupta vs Sri Markendaya and Sri Omkareswara Swamy Temple held that the sale under the public auction cannot be set aside on the ground that some offer was made by a third party subsequently. The highest offer received in the auction is accepted as a fair value. Full Story
4. The Calcutta High Court in Manick Sardar vs State of West Bengal held that mere penetration is sufficient to prove the offence of rape. The marks or injuries on the victim’s body is not necessarily required to prove the offence of rape. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Babu Venkatesh vs the State of Karnataka held that if the complaint is not supported by an affidavit, then the magistrate cannot entertain an application under section 156(3) of the CrPC. The necessity of an affidavit is to make the person, making the application, conscious (aware) and to prevent him from making a false affidavit. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Sharafat Ali vs the State of Uttar Pradesh held that the previous criminal history of the accused, his conduct, and behaviour in jail are all relevant in considering his application of pre-mature release. Full Story
3. The Rajasthan High Court in Vijay Narayan Sharma vs the State of Rajasthan held that judicial review is generally not allowed in administrative matters unless there is any violation of laws or rules in the act of authorities or any malafide action is seen at their side. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in T. Takano vs Securities and Exchange Board of India held that quasi-judicial authorities while concluding their decision, must disclose the material basis on which the authority relied for adjudication. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs Oil Field Employees Association and Ors. held that the workers of the union who were not part of the settlement entered into between the Majority Union and the employer are not bound by the same. Full Story
2. The Gujarat High Court in Rajeshbhai Jesingbhai Dayara vs the State of Gujarat held that to prosecute a person under SC/ST Act, 1989, the accused must know the caste of the victim that such person belongs to scheduled caste or tribe. Full Story
3. The Delhi High Court in BW Buisnessworld Media Ltd. vs Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corp. Ltd. held that if a person who is himself ineligible to be an arbitrator, appoints an arbitrator as per section 12(5) of the Arbitration Act, then such appointment is void ab initio. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. held that High Courts while passing any orders, must refrain from the observations which are beyond the contours of the controversy. General observations must be avoided, which are not warranted in the case. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Manoj vs the State of Haryana held that if a plea of juvenility has to be raised, then it should be raised in a bonafide and truthful manner. The provisions are to be construed liberally but not to a person who approaches the court untruthfully. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Satye Singh vs the State of Uttarakhand held that section 106 of the Evidence Act is not to relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty to prove the guilt of the accused. Full Story
3. The Chhattisgarh High Court in Nand Kumar Verma vs State of Chhattisgarh & Anr. held that no FIR (First Information Report) can be lodged under section 195 of CrPC based on a private complaint for forging of documents or conspiracy committed before the court. Full Story
4. The Jharkhand High Court in Priyanka Devi vs Satish Kumar held that section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act is akin to section 96(3) of the CPC, which says that no appeal can be made against a decree passed with the consent of parties. And section 19(2) also covers orders passed by the court along with the decree. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Debananda Tamuli vs Smt. Kakumoni Kataky held that where there is no reasonable ground on the part of the wife to stay away from the matrimonial home, it creates a ground of desertion and for dissolution of marriage. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in the State of Kerala vs Laxmi Vasanth held that section 30(5) of the Partnership Act shall not be applied to a minor who was not a partner when he attained majority. The person shall not be liable for any dues when he was a partner being a minor. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in B.R. Patil vs Tulsa Y Sawkar held that Order 2, Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code does not compel a plaintiff to join two or more causes of action in a single suit but only permits to do the same. Full Story
4. Telangana High Court in Mandala Murali vs State of Andhra Pradesh held that if the statement given in the dying declaration is true and voluntary, then it can be the sole basis of conviction. The statement must inspire the full confidence of the court. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Prakash Corporates vs Dee Vee Projects Limited held that its suo motu power to extend the limitation period applies in relation to the period prescribed for filing a written statement in commercial suits. Full Story
2. The Delhi High Court in Amit vs State and Ors. held that rape is a barbaric crime against the woman’s body and soul of the society. It is a crime against the dignity of a woman, and dignity is one of the basic precepts of equality under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. Full Story
3. The Kerala High Court in Beena M.S vs Shino G. Babu held that if one of the spouses refuses to give divorce on account of mutual consent knowing the reason and the fact that marriage has failed, then it amounts to cruelty with the other spouse. Full Story
4. Former Bihar Chief Minister and RJD president Lalu Prasad has been convicted in four out of five cases related to a multi-crore (950 crores) fodder scam that took place in the animal husbandry department when he was the Chief Minister. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in B. Boraiah Rep. Thr. Lrs. vs M.G. Thirthaprasad & Ors. held that when the judgment/decree of the trial court merges with the judgment of the High Court, then the application for correction in decree can be filed only in the High Court where the decree was affirmed. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Bimal Chandra Ghosh vs the State of Tripura held that the court cannot give any credence to the compromise entered between parties after the confirmation of conviction by the High Court. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Shafiya Khan @ Shakuntala Prajapati vs the State of UP held that there must be supporting material for the allegations written in FIR. The court must quash proceedings sparingly in rarest cases, but there has to be something to proceed. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Ravindra vs Union of India held that in substitution of death sentence, imprisonment for life without any remission till the last breath of accused can be given. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in R. Valli vs Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. held that for determination of motor accident compensation, the age of the deceased should be the basis. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Jaina Construction Company vs Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. held that the insurance company cannot repudiate (reject) a claim only on the ground that the company was intimated with little delay about the occurrence of the theft. Full Story
3. The Delhi High Court in Mohd. Afsar vs State held that the testimony given by the father of the prosecutrix regarding the age of the victim cannot be used to rebut or rebuke the documentary evidence of the age of the prosecutrix. Full Story
4. Justice Pushpa Ganediwala, judge of Bombay High Court, has resigned from office. She delivered two judgments relating to child abuse which led to controversies later on. Due to this, the collegium revoked their recommendation for making her permanent judge. Full Story
1. The Bombay High Court in the State of Maharashtra vs Gulab Dattu Patil and Ors. held that if a High Court reverses the trial court finding, then it must re-evaluate every factual finding of the trial court with due care and caution. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs Krishna Modi held that to get a pension under the freedom fighters pension scheme, the person must fulfil the conditions required for the same. Having been qualified for State Government would not make a person entitled under the Central Government scheme. Full Story
3. A PIL was filed before Madras High Court by Rangarajan Narasimhan for mandating the customary dress code for entry inside the temple complexes. Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari said that it is difficult to see somebody is standing for Hijab and some for Dhotis inside the temple. The country is secular; there is an effort to divide the country by religion. Full Story
4. The Kerala High Court in Peggy Fen vs Central Board of Film Certification and Ors. held that lawyers should act as a mouthpiece of the judicial system and only engage in fair criticism of a judgment. Criticism of a judgment without even reading it is not acceptable, but fair criticism is always acceptable. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Pappu vs State of Uttar Pradesh held that for awarding a death sentence to the accused, the court must consider that apart from giving a death sentence, any other option of punishment is foreclosed. The abhorrent nature of the crime alone cannot be the decisive factor to award a death sentence to the accused. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Ajit Singh vs Padma Bhandari said that the fruits of the decree cannot be realised unless it gets executed. Where the execution of the decree itself becomes the second round of litigation, then it takes ages for the decree-holder to realise its fruits. Full Story
3. In Surya Developers vs N. Sailesh Prasad, the Supreme Court held that a separate suit for challenging consent decree is not maintainable. It was further observed that an agreement or compromise which is void or voidable shall not be deemed to be lawful. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in R. Muthukumar vs Chairman and Managing Director said that there is no concept of negative equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. A principle axiomatic in this country’s constitutional lore is that there is no negative equality, added court. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam vs the State of Bihar said that section 498A of IPC was incorporated to prevent cruelty against women. Prosecuting relatives of husband’s on general allegations is an abuse of the process of law. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar and Anr. vs Post Master General And Ors. held that if an employee of a post office has committed any wrongful act or fraud during employment, then the post office shall be vicariously liable for the wrongful actions of an employee. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs State Wakf Board said that whether the property comes under Wakf or not shall be determined by the court only after conducting an inquiry under section 40 of the Wakf Act. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Nawabuddin vs the State of Uttarakhand held that a person who commits an offence under POCSO Act must not at all be treated leniently by the courts. Children are sensitive and precious human resources. Suitable punishment to the accused conveys a message to society of being punished after committing an offence against children. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Serious Fraud Investigation Office vs Rahul Modi held that not taking cognizance by the court before the expiry of the statutory period does not give the right to the accused to seek default bail despite when a charge sheet has already been filed. The right of default bail arises when the charge sheet has not been filed before the statutory period. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Rajesh Yadav vs the State of UP held that the trial courts shall make all possible efforts to do the chief and cross-examination of private witnesses on the same day. The interval between the chief and cross-examination gives sufficient time to the defense for winning. Full Story
3. The Gujarat High Court in Rasidaben w/o Sidikbhai Daudbhai vs the State of Gujarat held that while determining the citizenship of a person, the principles of natural and fair justice are ignored, then the judicial intervention by court becomes necessary. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Yes Bank Limited vs 63 Moons Technologies Ltd. held that the consumer complaints filed in District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission cannot be transferred to the High Court. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in the State of Uttarakhand vs Sachendra Singh Rawat said that intention to cause death which is an ingredient under section 302 of IPC, can be gathered from circumstances like nature of the weapon, what part the blow was aimed, injury, whether the act was premeditated or not and so on. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in the State of Manipur vs Surajkumar Okram held that the law which is passed by the legislature is good and valid till it is declared unconstitutional by the competent court or the law gets repealed. Full Story
3. The Orissa High Court in Himansu Sekhar Srichandan vs Sudhir Ranjan Patra held that setting aside of ex parte decree does not mean that defendant will be restored to its position that was before the date of hearing of the suit. He will only be allowed to participate in proceedings thereon. He won’t be allowed to file a written statement. Full Story
4. The Calcutta High Court in Anubrata Mondal vs Union of India held that the territorial limitations which are prescribed under section 160 of CrPC are also applicable to investigations done by CBI. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Ajanta LLP vs Casio Keisanki Kabushiki Kaisha d/b/a Casio Computer Co. Ltd held that if the mistake is patent (that is on face visible), then only a consent decree can be altered or modified and otherwise not. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Krishan Kumar vs the State of Haryana held that seeking relief of suspension of execution of sentence and to be released on bail is the statutory right of the appellant. And on the same, the court cannot impose a time bar on the convict. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Central Industrial Security Force vs HC (GD) Om Prakash held that if there is a case of premature retirement then it shall be allowed and granted on the basis of entire service records. Full Story
4. The Delhi High Court in Kavita Tushir vs Pushpraj Dalal held that plaint can be rejected as a whole or not. There cannot be a partial or piecemeal rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in New Okhla Industrial Development Authority vs Yunus held that the award, which is passed by the Lok Adalat, is not a compromise decree. The purport of the law giver is only to confer it with enforceability in like manner as if it were a decree. Thus, the court said the legal fiction that the Award is to be treated as a decree goes no further. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in RK Singh vs General Manager held that a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution is not maintainable against a review order alone. The principle of not entertaining a Special Leave Petition against an order rejecting the review petition when the main judgment is not under challenge has become a presidential principle. Full Story
3. The Calcutta High Court in Supratik Ghosh vs State of West Bengal and Anr. held that section 245 of CrPC does not allow the Magistrate to discharge the accused due to the absence of the complainant without even considering the evidence already adduced by the complainant witnesses in court. Full Story
4. The Kerala High Court in K. Jayarajan and Ors. vs Sambasivan held that the grounds available to the party to set aside a sale under Order 21, Rule 90 of CPC, won’t be available in a petition filed under section 47 of the Code. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in State of Sikkim vs Jasbir Singh said that the intention of the Army Act is not to give protection to army personnel by awarding lesser punishments even for serious offences. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Jogi Ram vs Suresh Kumar said that a limited estate given to the wife can be her absolute property under section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act if the limited estate was given for her maintenance. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in the State of Manipur & Ors. vs Surjakumar Okram & Ors held that by using a saving clause, the legislature cannot give life to legislation. If a law is unconstitutional, then it is non est for all purposes. Full Story
4. The Calcutta High Court in Lakshi Ram Hembram @ Laxmiram Hembram vs State of West Bengal held that the testimony of sole eye witness cannot be disregarded merely because it does not corroborate with the evidence given by other co-accused persons. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in State of U.P. vs Veerpal held that if the court is satisfied with the dying declaration to be true and made voluntarily, then it can be the basis of sole conviction without corroboration. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Pappu Tiwary vs the State of Jharkhand held that if the accused wishes to take Plea of Alibi, the burden of proving the same is heavy on him. It has to be proved with certainty, excluding his presence from the place of occurrence of crime. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Pappu Tiwary vs the State of Jharkhand said that while proving his case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused must not find ‘nitpick’ to find an excuse to obtain an acquittal. Leaving any loophole will always benefit the prosecution. Full Story
4. The Gujarat High Court in Maheshsinh Babusinh Zala vs the State of Gujarat said that every offence committed under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is compoundable in nature, and if the parties wish to settle the matter amicably, then it is permitted. Full Story
- January 2022 Law News
- December 2021 Law News
- November 2021 Law News
- October 2021 Law News
- September 2021 Law News
- August 2021 Law News
- July 2021 Law News
- June 2021 Law News
- May 2021 Law News
- April 2021 Law News
- March 2021 Law News
- February 2021 Law News
- January 2021 Law News
- December 2020 Law News
- Article 334A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
- Article 332A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
- Article 330A of the Constitution of India - 14th April 2024
