CLICK HERE TO READ THE LATEST LAW NEWS
1. The Supreme Court in Amar Nath vs Gian Chand held that a holder of power of attorney can sell and get the property registered by merely producing a copy of the power of attorney. There is no need for the original document mandatorily. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Shiv Developers Through Its Partner Sunilbhai Somabhai Ajmeri vs Aksharay Developers said that the bar to file a suit by an unregistered firm under section 69 clause 2 of the Partnership Act won’t be attracted if the contract in question was not related to the course of its business dealings. Full Story
3. The Karnataka High Court in Ramesh vs State held that if the accused has already appeared before the trial court either personally or through a lawyer, then he cannot apply for anticipatory bail. Full Story
4. The Collegium of the Supreme Court has recommended seven lawyers to be appointed as High Court judges of Andhra Pradesh. The lawyers who have been recommended are:
- Konakanti Sreenivasa Reddy
- Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad
- Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
- Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
- Satti Subba Reddy
- Ravi Cheemalapati
- Vaddiboyana Sujatha. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Parsi Zoroastrian Anjuman, Mhow vs The Sub-Divisional Officer/The Registrar of Public Trusts And Anr. held that the institutional agencies which are self-governed such as public trusts cannot be dictated in taking decisions. The autonomy in decision making cannot be overarched by the state. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Griesheim GmbH (Now Called Air Liquide Deutschland GmbH) vs Goyal MG Gases Pvt. Ltd. held that with the conjoint reading of sections 2(4) and 44A of Civil Procedure Code, High Courts having original civil jurisdiction can also execute the decree passed by a foreign court. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Deepak S/o Laxman Dongre vs the State of Maharashtra held that the reason for depriving a citizen of his fundamental right of movement throughout the territories of India (also known as the order of externment) must stand the test of reasonableness. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh vs Lachhmi Narain Gupta held that the M. Nagaraj judgment passed by the court in 2006 will only have a prospective (happen in the future) effect. If the judgment would be applicable retrospectively (with effect from a date in the past) then it would affect the interests of others in the reservation in promotion. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Ashish Shelar And Ors. vs the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly & Anr said that disorderly conduct in the house will not be avoided. But if any disorderly conduct takes place, then the action taken must be constitutional, legal and rational. Suspension beyond the remainder of the ongoing session is worse than expulsion. The court quashed the suspension of 12 BJP MLAs from the Maharashtra Legislative Assembly for one year. Full Story
2. The Calcutta High Court in Dr Nazrul Islam vs Basudeb Banerjee & Ors said that to prosecute a public servant and before initiating investigation against him under section 156(3) of CrPC, it is necessary to obtain prior sanction of the appropriate government. Full Story
3. The Karnataka High Court in Srinivas Murthy H.N. vs the State of Karnataka held that if a person is a government employee, then it does not become a ground for his bail where he is alleged under a serious offence of rape. Full Story
4. The Telangana High Court in Sri. Mettu Krishna Reddy vs the State of Telangana held that if a complainant does not appear, then using power given under section 256 of CrPC, the court can acquit the accused. But such power must be used judiciously by the court. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar vs the State of Bihar said that while deciding and considering the bail application of the accused, the court must see the gravity and nature of the offence committed. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Rehana Begum vs State of Assam & Anr said that to quash a complaint regarding bigamy (marrying someone while already married to another person) under sections 494/495 of the Indian Penal Code, the High Court can rely on findings of the Family Court concerning previous marriage. Full Story
3. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Narendra Singh vs the State of Haryana held that consent given by a girl for a sexual act in the past does not apply to future occasions. The consent given for one instance won’t be applicable to future meetings or occasions. Full Story
4. The Delhi High Court in Jindal Stainless (Hisar) Ltd. vs Sourabh Jinal & Ors held that if the defendant wishes to file documents in the court, then he may do so along with the filing of a written statement. If he delays in submitting documents, then permission or leave of the court is required. Full Story
Courts closed due to national holiday.
1. The Jharkhand High Court in Phoda Devi and Ors vs Ganesh Mahto held that to claim adverse possession of the immovable property, it is necessary for the party to first acknowledge the title of the party against whom it is being claimed. Full Story
2. The Karnataka High Court in Venkatesh vs the State of Karnataka held that if a person breaches the promise to marry, then it is not covered under the offence of cheating in the Indian Penal Code. Full Story
3. The Karnataka High Court in Lalitha vs the State of Karnataka held that if the victim of rape is below the age of 16 years, then she has to be heard before passing any bail order for the accused. Full Story
4. The Delhi High Courts in Juhi Chawla vs Science and Engineering Research Board said that actor Juhi Chawla is a popular celebrity, and if she does social work, then her cost/fine imposed of Rs 20 Lakhs would be reduced to Rs 2 Lakhs. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Keshav vs Gian Chand held that when any person obtains any benefit from another, the court would call upon the person who wishes to maintain the right to gift to discharge the burden of proving that he exerted no influence to obtain the document. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Union of India held that admission (admitting any fact) by a lawyer as to the matter of law or legal conclusions does not bind the court nor the client. Full Story
3. The Karnataka High Court in Gaurav Raj Jain vs the State of Karnataka held that in the absence of any order passed by the court, the custody of a minor daughter with the mother cannot be held to be unlawful. Full Story
4. The Karnataka High Court in Virendra Khanna vs the State of Karnataka held that if further investigation is to be conducted under section 173(8) of CrPC, then it must relate to the incident of the alleged crime. The crime for which the charge sheet has already been filed. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in The Employees State Insurance Corporation vs Union of India and others held that in the conflict between a statement in an advertisement and service regulations, the latter shall prevail. Regulations framed by statutory authorities have the force of enacted law. Full Story
2. The Punjab and Haryana High Court in Gurmail Singh vs the State of Punjab held that there can be no second FIR on the same incident in which an FIR has already been lodged. If it is filed then it is an abuse of the process of law. Full Story
3. The Bombay High Court in Harvinder Kaur Vishakha Singh vs Tarvinder Singh K Singh directed the employer to give compensation to his employee (truck driver) for putting him in extreme stress and strain which resulted in his demise. As per facts, he was driving long distances continuously for 18 days. Full Story
4. The Bombay High Court in Alice Realities Pvt Ltd vs the State of Maharashtra held that transfer of tenancy does not amount to the creation of new tenancy. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity vs State Bank of India held that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to the institution of a civil suit in the Civil Court. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Sunil Kumar Maity vs State Bank of India held that revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is limited under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. Full Story
3. Senior Advocate Rebecca John and amicus curiae in the RIT Foundation vs UOI and Others where the exception to section 375 IPC is challenged, she said that expectation of sexual relations in a marriage cannot lead to husband having forceful sex with wife. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Arunachala Gounder (Dead) vs Ponnusamy held that daughter has a right to inherit the self-acquired property or share in the partition of a coparcenary property of her Hindu father dying intestate (not having made a will before one dies). Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Arunachala Gounder (Dead) vs Ponnusamy said that if a female Hindu dies intestate (not having made a will before one dies) without leaving any issue (heir), then the property inherited by her from her father or mother would go to the heirs of her father whereas the property inherited from her husband or father in law would go to the heirs of the husband. Full Story
Related: Procedure for the Succession of Property of Female Hindu
2. The Supreme Court in Krishan Lal & Ors. vs Vini Mahajan Secretary & Anr. held that the High Court cannot issue direction to the state to form a new policy. The matter needs to be analysed on its own merits by the law. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Reinassance Hotel Holdings vs B. Vijaya Sai held that while interpreting the provisions of a statute, the textual interpretation should be matched with the contextual one. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Indian Overseas Bank And Ors. vs Om Prakash Lal Srivastava held that it is not necessary to call a handwriting expert in departmental proceedings. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar vs the State of Haryana said that in the proceedings of judicial review, the courts are concerned with the decision-making process and not the decision itself. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Atlanta Limited vs Union of India held that when the appellate court exercises power under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, then it need not re-appreciate the evidence or examine the sufficiency of the evidence. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in State by NCB Bengaluru vs Pallulabid Ahmad Arimutta held that confessional statement recorded under section 67 of the NDPS Act is inadmissible in the trial of an offence under the NDPS Act. Full Story
4. While speaking at the E-Inaugration of Justice Clock and E-Court Fee System for HC of Gujarat, Justice Chandrachud said that technology is opening us up to the world outside. It is bringing focus on judges. The use of AI technology has helped in improving productivity. Technology must be understood as the facilitator of change, but the driver of change has been and must be the human mind. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in BL Kashyap and Sons Ltd. vs JMS Steels and Power Corporation said that the grant of leave to defend under Order 37, Rule 3 is an ordinary rule and denial to leave to defend is an exception. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Seethakathi Trust Madras vs Krishnaveni held that a decree for obtaining specific performance of decree cannot be obtained behind the back of a bonafide purchaser, especially when the transaction has taken place before the institution of the suit for specific performance. Full Story
3. The Delhi High Court in Sunder Singh Bhati vs the State held that gravity of the offence cannot be the only criteria for denying bail to a person accused. A mere vague belief that the accused may thwart the investigation cannot be a ground to prolong the incarceration of the accused. Full Story
4. The Delhi Court in State vs Krishan Jambad said that a man cannot be given the protection of mental illness for killing his daughter and attempting to kill his wife. The court said making a call on number 100 to the police after the incident and keeping the doors locked so that wife could not run away shows his mental state of mind quite aware. Hence the case cannot be of legal insanity. Full Story
1. The Kolkata Consumer Commission in Arkadeep Sarkar vs Yauatcha and Anr. held that restaurants cannot forcibly impose service charges on the customer. The act of the restaurant insisting on payment of service charge by the customer is illegal, malafide and contrary to law. Full Story
2. Today, the Chief Justice of India expressed his unhappiness regarding lawyers appearing in virtual hearings through mobile phones. The appearance through phones is causing problems in hearing and understanding for the Bench. The CJI said, ‘I think we need to ban appearance through phones.’ Full Story
3. In Evara Foundation vs Union of India and Ors the Central Government cleared to the Supreme Court that no person can be compelled to be vaccinated against his wishes. The Government has not issued any SOP ( Standard of Procedure), which makes carrying of vaccination certificates mandatory. Full Story
4. The Karnataka High Court in K Mallikarjuna vs H A Sudha Mallikarjuna said that a couple living separately for 21 years means the marriage is dead. The court, therefore, granted divorce, saying that nothing would be gained in keeping this marriage alive. The court must make endeavours to save marriage, but where there is no scope, the court must not make the divorce process lengthier for the parties. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Deepak Sharma vs the State of Haryana held that personal liberty to travel abroad cannot be denied to a person only because he is arrayed (displayed) as an accused under section 498A complaint filed by his brother’s wife against his brother and family. Full Story
2. In Amish Devgan’s case, it was observed that “In a polity committed to pluralism, hate speech cannot conceivably contribute in any legitimate way to democracy and repudiates the right to equality. The dosage of hate speech is increasing with the law’s delay.” Full Story
3. The arbitral tribunal in Bengal Unitech Universal Siliguri Projects Ltd. vs Siliguri Jalpaiguri Development Authority awarded Bengal Unitech Rs. 155 crores which were deposited with the respondent for a development project. Full Story
4. Uttarakhand High Court in State of Uttarakhand vs Prashant Sanglikar acquits former journalist and activist Prashant Rahi, who was accused of being a Maoist. He was charged along with three others for sedition and waging war against the state. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Manoj Kumar Khokhar vs State of Rajasthan and Anr. held that bail in a pre-trial stage cannot be granted by a cryptic and casual order without considering the material aspects of the case. Elaborate reasoning is not necessarily required but material aspects cannot be ignored. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Mahendra vs the State of MP held that conviction with the aid of section 149 of IPC is not sustainable when the co-accused have been acquitted, making the membership of the unlawful assembly less than five leaving no unidentified accused in the case. Full Story
3. The Jharkhand High Court in Kayum Ansari vs Central Coalfield Limited said that to see whether an appellate order is speaking or non-speaking, the same has to be determined in light of the grounds raised in the appeal. It cannot be seen in isolation to the grounds. Full Story
4. After the issuance of notice by the Delhi High Court in Journalist Arti Tikoo’s plea against the social media platform to suspend her account, her Twitter account has been finally restored after two days of notice. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Deepak Sharma vs the State of Haryana held that taking custody of jewellery for safety purposes cannot be constituted as cruelty under section 498A of IPC. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in State of Orissa & Ors vs Prasanta Kumar Swain held that High Courts while dismissing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, must apply its judicial mind to the grounds or challenge of submission. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Vasudha Sethi vs Kiran V. Bhaskar held that in the matter of custody of the child, the parent’s rights are irrelevant. The touchstone of the principle that the child’s welfare shall be of paramount consideration and cannot be ignored by the courts. Full Story
4. In RIT Foundation vs UOI, the amicus curiae Adv. Rajshekhar Rao said that rape is rape and no classification or legal jugglery can alter that reality. He said that the exception to marital rape is based on an outdated concept of marriage which exempts a man from forceful sexual intercourse by a man with his wife. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Garment Craft vs Prakash Chand Goel held that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is not for correcting any legal flaw when the final finding is justified or can be supported. The power under Article 227 must be used and exercised sparingly. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Haryana Tourism Ltd. vs Kandhari Beverages Ltd. held that a High Court, while dealing with an appeal under section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, cannot enter into the merits of the claim. Full Story
3. The Karnataka High Court in State of Karnataka vs Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya held that a victim does not have a right to challenge every order of a trial court for revision. The right to appeal is a specific right carved out by the legislature, but the same cannot be exercised by the victim in every order and case. Full Story
4. The Bombay High Court in Navneet Ashok Bangalkar vs State of Maharashtra and Anr held that consent for sexual intercourse given under misconception of fact is not free consent. Sexual intercourse against the complainant’s will and obtaining her consent under a promise to marry could not be said to be free consent. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in the State of Madhya Pradesh vs Jogendra held that demanding money for constructing a house comes under the ambit of dowry demand under section 304B of IPC. The dowry has an expansive meaning, said the court. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Suresh Kankra vs State of Uttar Pradesh held that a judicial magistrate while passing an order under section 156(3) of CrPC, must be mindful of the consequences. It is a judicial order; therefore, relevant materials are expected to be taken care of. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Rajendra Bhagat vs the State of Jharkhand held that the court must encourage genuine settlement in matrimonial disputes. If the parties are wilful in resuming happy married life, then the court must accept the settlement. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. held that if a builder fails in obtaining an occupation certificate, then it is a deficiency under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in the State of Maharashtra vs Bhagwan held that employees of the autonomous bodies cannot claim service benefits as a matter of right like government employees. Full Story
2. The Kerala High Court in Meria Joseph vs Anoop S Ponnattu held that temporarily shifting the place of residence does not make a valid ground for transfer of cases. The jurisdiction shall lie at the place of permanent residence only. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in S Amutha vs the Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors held that if there is a representation against detention order, then the competent authority is bound to do so with the utmost despatch. Delaying in considering representation is not good. Full Story
4. The Karnataka High Court in Pradeep Moparthy vs the State of Karnataka held that while quashing petition under section 482 of CrPC, the court cannot appreciate evidence at that stage. Appreciation of evidence lies within the purview of the trial court. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Parvati Devi vs the State of Bihar held that cruelty in connection with demand to dowry before death must be in close proximity to death. But no proximity test can define any particular period. So it can be assessed through the facts and circumstances of the case. The conjoint reading section 113B of Evidence Act and 304B of IPC clearly says that the presumption is raised once the prosecution succeeds in establishing ingredients. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Jasdeep Singh Jassu vs the State of Punjab held that without any act in furtherance of common intention, mere common intention per se would not attract section 34 of IPC. Full Story
3. The Delhi High Court in Ram Nawal vs State held that penetration is sufficient to make the offence under section 376 IPC and section 6 of POCSO Act. The semen doesn’t need to be necessarily present. The court upheld the conviction of a man for raping a 5-year-old child. Full Story
4. The Delhi Court in State vs Shiv Shankar Prasad said that creating fear in the mind of a judge can impact the justice dispensation system. It can affect the mind and ability to perform well and judiciously. The court sentenced the staffer to 5 years in jail for threatening a judge and attempting to extort money. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in UHL Power Company Ltd. vs State of Himachal Pradesh held that post-award interest can be granted by an arbitrator on the interest amount awarded. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs Alapan Bandyopadhyay held that decision passed by a tribunal can only be scrutinized by a High Court which has territorial jurisdiction over the question. Full Story
3. The Bombay High Court in Kishnabhai Nathubhai Ghutia & Anr. vs the Hon’ble Administrator Union Territory & Ors. held that no one can claim public holiday as a fundamental right. It is a matter of public and government policy. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Ram Ratan vs State of Madhya Pradesh held that to attract section 397 of IPC, the offender need not actually use the weapon if the weapon has been used to create fear in the mind of the victim, then it is sufficient. Full Story
1. In Neil Aurelio Nunes and Ors. vs Union of India, Senior Advocate Shyam Divan told Supreme Court that Postgraduate Admissions must be completely merit-based and reservation must be minimal. In the level of super specialisation, there cannot be any reservation because any dilution of merit at this level would adversely affect the national goal. Full Story
2. Justice Madan B Lokur is heading a panel constituted under DCPCR (Delhi Commission for Protection of Child Rights) to assess the issues that are faced by children in conflict with the law living in observation homes. He said that a good justice system not only benefits those who are accused of various offences but everyone akin to legal aid services who need assistance. Full Story
3. The Government of Punjab has constituted a high-level committee of two members to conduct a probe into the alleged breach in the security of the Prime Minister in which his convoy was stuck on a flyover at Hussainwala. The petition says that if the prime minister of the country can face such a situation then the fundamental rights of citizens are in serious jeopardy in the state of Punjab and beyond. Full Story
4. The Delhi High Court in Rajat Jain and Ors. vs UPSC and Anr. denied to stay and postpone the mains examination of Civil Services conducted by UPSC. The court said that it will not interfere in the examination process. The candidates who have cleared prelims are eligible to appear for mains too. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Arvind vs State of Madhya Pradesh modified the order of life imprisonment till natural life to a sentence of 30 years without remission to a person convicted of rape and murder of 10 years old girl child. Full Story
2. The Karnataka High Court in Malappa vs the State of Karnataka held that where the court finds that DNA testing is required and important to be done, then the court can direct for the test, and there is no prohibition on it. Giving self incriminatory statements without any threat does not violate Article 20(3) as per Kathi Kalu judgment. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Bhadar Ram vs Jassa Ram said that a person belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe is deemed to be of his original state only, the place of which he is a permanent resident, and not of the state where he migrates. Full Story
4. The Kerala High Court in KS Narayana Elayathu vs Sandhya held that the Family Court is empowered to appoint guardian for both the minor and minor’s property. Whereas District Court is only empowered to appoint a guardian for the minor’s property and not the minor. Full Story
1. The Kerala High Court in Rajeswary vs the State of Kerala held that the convict doesn’t need to pay the fine amount in the cheque bounce case to the court. It can be paid directly to the complainant. Full Story
2. The Delhi High Court in XYZ vs GNCTD held that reproductive choice is a facet of the reproductive rights of a woman. The court allowed the termination of 28 weeks foetus in the case where the foetus was suffering from abnormalities. The court said the mother cannot be deprived of her right to continuation of pregnancy. Full Story
3. The Delhi High Court in Rakesh Kumar vs Vijayanta Arya (DCP) and Ors sentenced a police officer to one day of imprisonment for arresting a man without serving him notice. The court said it is a violation of guidelines issued in the Arnesh Kumar case where it was held that giving notice under section 41A of CrPC is mandatory. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Mahindra and Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. vs Maheshbhai Tinabhai Rathod held that to condone the delay beyond the limitation period prescribed under section 34(3) of the Arbitration Act, section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot come into application. Full Story
1. The Supreme Court in Neil Aurelio Nunes and Others vs Union of India and Others held that Rs. 8 lakh annual income is a reasonable and just criterion for calculating quota under Economical Weaker Section (EWS). There is no need to change the criteria, said expert committee formulated by the central government to the court. Full Story
2. The Supreme Court in I-Pay Clearing Services Private Limited vs ICICI Bank Limited held that just because that an application has been filed under section 34(4) of the Arbitration Act, the court is not under any obligation to remit the matter always to Arbitral Tribunal. Full Story
3. The Supreme Court in Union of India vs Manju Arora held that if the employee refuses the regular promotion, then he or she is not entitled to financial up-gradation benefits. Despite giving an offer, if an employee refuses, he himself shall be responsible for his stagnation. Full Story
4. The Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs Dilip Uttam Jayabhay held that an acquittal in a criminal trial has no relevance in disciplinary proceedings. The standard of proof in both cases stands on a different footing. Full Story
- 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
