Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The petitioner Satyendar Kumar Jain is an influential person and has the potential to tamper with the evidence as indicated by his conduct during custody.
The Delhi High Court opined that that technicalities and procedural defects, which do not go to the root of the matter, should not be permitted to defeat a just cause, more so in cases where suits are initiated or defended on behalf of public corporations.
The concept of exporting goods into the international market at lower prices came to be known as ‘Dumping’. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) recognises the right of countries to bring in anti-dumping frameworks to deal with issues relating to dumping.
The Delhi High Court took note of the fact that Article 25 of the Constitution of India does not bestow such a right.
Delhi High Court held Bella Estate Jhuggi dwellers not entitled to rehabilitation under Delhi Slum and JJ Rehabilitation and Relocation Policy 2015.
The delay on part of the petitioner in approaching the Court had led to the conclusion of admission process, due to which the candidates with lower merit would got admission which stood crystalised. Therefore, no exceptional circumstances existed in warranting issuance of directions to admit the petitioner in the academic year 2022-23.
“A protest cannot be allowed to endanger others, damage property, restrict essential services and such a protest cannot receive constitutional protection. The acts of violence and violent speech that instigates violence and endangers rule of law, damage public property and peace are not protected under the Indian Constitution.” opined the Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court observed that there was an unexplained substantial delay in issuing the impugned Show Cause Notice dated 09-11-2017 and thus, is inexcusable in the eyes of law
Delhi High Court observed that on perusal of the summary of proceedings, it was clear that there was disturbance caused during the sitting of the House by the petitioner and the ruling party members.
The Delhi HIgh Court opined that eyewitness running away and hiding at the time of firing and then coming for the rescue of the deceased is not unnatural as self-preservation is the first instinct of a human being.
The post of Judicial Officer is a coveted one with responsibilities attached to it and one is expected to be unceremonious, prudent, and not take things in an easy manner.
Delhi High Court reiterated that the right to housing is a part and parcel of the right to livelihood, health, food, clean drinking water, sewerage and transport facilities, such facilities must be provided to individuals who will be relocated.
Delhi High Court directed the unauthorized occupants of dharmshalas and jhuggis to be removed from the Kalkaji Mandir premises by the SHO, Kalkaji within 48 hours and no further time shall be granted to any unauthorized occupant.
The Delhi High Court was of the view that the “regard had to be given to the fact that the said provision was not a penal provision or one which is designed to punish an Authorised Entity for having failed to achieve set out targets. It was fundamentally focussed upon the needs of a particular consumer who complains that the Authorised Entity in the particular Geographical Area was not ready to supply natural gas.”
Supreme Court said that the civil suit filed at the instance of the respondents for taking possession of the subject land is pending for the last 32 years and has not started its journey yet, this is called the travesty of injustice to a person who is indisputedly the title holder and still unable to enjoy the property.
Delhi High Court observed that the petitioner was enrolled as an advocate in 2010 and he fulfils the requirement of “continuously practicing as an advocate for not less than 7 years on the last date of receipt of applications”.
Delhi High Court observed that the respondent is a law graduate enrolled with the State Bar Council and despite being aware of the binding nature of the orders of the Court has shown scant regard for the legal process.
To make the company viable, the unsecured creditor would have to sacrifice to some extent otherwise the revival efforts would fail, observed the Supreme Court..
The impugned arbitral award was passed without considering the clauses of the Concessionaire Agreement while adjudicating on the rate of interest to be granted, thus, suffers from infirmity and patent illegality.