Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Gauhati High Court was faced with a peculiar case where “petitioner” had followed every rule in the book to file a well-planned petition; however, in reality the petitioner did not exist!
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court stated that revisionary power under Juvenile Justice Act vests only with the High Court
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on validity of AIBE; ex-communication of Dawoodi Bohras; decriminalisation of adultery; permissibility of DNA test of children to prove allegations of adultery; and more. It also covers reports on the career trajectory & important decisions of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Dutta and the newly appointed 7 judges of the Supreme Court; Explainers on important law points; and Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in the month of February.
The Supreme Court was unimpressed with the explanation given by the plaintiff for the delay of 853 days that he initially fell sick with Jaundice and was later confined to house with High Blood Pressure, Diabetes and other diseases. The petition had extension of time to deposit the balance sale consideration of Rs. 15,00,000/-.
The Supreme Court observed that such settlement is nothing but a compounding of the offence and hence, the Court cannot override such compounding and impose its will.
The observation of the Supreme Court came in a case where the deposition of the prosecutrix was recorded by the trial court in English language though she had deposed in her vernacular language.
It was observed that judicial discipline required that once the conviction was confirmed by the Supreme Court that too after hearing the accused, the High Court should not have thereafter made any comment on the merits of the case.
The Karnataka High Court strictly admonished the petitioner for abusing every jurisdiction of law but refused to impose exemplary costs as the same would only increase the agony of the petitioner, whose marriage was annulled albeit with consent.
Supreme Court observed that the persons from marginalised sections of the society already face severe discrimination due to a lack of social capital, and a new disability more often than not compounds to such discrimination.
The Delhi High Court observed that a law student shall not represent a party or provide legal counsel in any legal proceeding before a court of law before being properly enrolled by a bar council and being admitted to the bar.
On 10.05.2019, a division Bench had observed that the question with regard to the actual stage at which the trial is said to have concluded is required to be authoritatively considered since the power under Section 319 of CrPC is extraordinary in nature.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on constitutionality of EWS Quota and dissent; Juvenility of Kathua gangrape-murder accused; acquittal of all Chhawla gangrape-murder accused; why Rajiv Gandhi assassination convicts were set free, and more. It also covers reports on Justice Chandrachud’s appointment as the 50th CJI and his to-do-list; CJI UU Lalit’s retirement; explainers on important law points; some Never Reported Judgments; and career trajectory and important decision of Justice BR Gavai.
Gauhati High Court: While deciding this interesting writ petition praying for the issuance of the writ of Mandamus directing to
Supreme Court: In an interesting question raised before it that compelled the bench of Aniruddha Bose and Vikram Nath*, JJ to reserve
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant petition wherein the Court was faced with the issue
“The scenario is that any order or judgment passed by this Court becomes a reportable exercise to create more volumes of reported cases! This thus has a possibility at times of causing some confusion on the legal principles prevalent.”
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of UU Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat and Sudhanshu Dhulia*, JJ has held that a counter claim under
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 12-12-2018 passed by the Additional
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: While deciding the instant appeal wherein substantial questions of law were raised vis-a-vis SectionS 80,
Supreme Court: In a case where the single bench of JK Maheshwari, J was posed with the question as to whether the