Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“If there is a denial of a fundamental right under Part III of the Constitution or there is a jurisdictional error or error apparent on the face of the record, the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction”, stated the Supreme Court
Continue reading
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
Continue reading
The Andhra Pradesh High Court directed the Official Receiver to cancel the sale deed as the same was without application of Section 53 of Provincial Insolvency Act.
Continue reading
The Supreme Court observed that such matters cannot be resolved by the application of judicial standards and have to be taken up on the administrative side of the Supreme Court.
Continue reading
Group of Companies Doctrine- an Arbitration Agreement entered into by a Company within a group of Companies can bind its non-signatory affiliates, if the circumstances demonstrate that the mutual intention of parties was to bind signatory as well as the non-signatory parties.
Continue reading
“The names which have been recommended earlier in point of time including the reiterated names ought not to be withheld or overlooked as this disturbs their seniority whereas those recommended later steal march on them. Loss of seniority of candidates is a matter of grave concern.”
Continue reading
While granting benefit of doubt to accused, the Supreme Court stated that “Taking into consideration the delay in lodging the FIR, with the circumstance of their names not being mentioned in the contemporaneous documents, the possibility of the said accused being falsely implicated cannot be ruled out.”
Continue reading
No mitigating circumstances of the petitioner were taken into account at any stage of the trial or the appellate process even though the petitioner was sentenced to capital punishment.
Continue reading
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.”
Continue reading
The case pertains to the resurrection of controversy surrounding the Pune Municipal Corporation and Indore Development Authority judgements of the Supreme Court vis-à-vis Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
Continue reading
The Rajasthan High Court perused the entire scheme under Chapter VI of the 1987 Act and stated that the Lok Adalat had no adjudicatory power and by allowing the prayer of the PP to withdraw prosecution, it had exercised adjudicatory jurisdiction which was not vested in it.
Continue reading
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..
Continue reading
The Supreme Court opined that the evidence has to be scrutinized so as to ensure that the totality of the evidence and circumstances relied on, did constitute a complete chain and directly points to the guilt of the convict.
Continue reading
The Supreme Court was of the view that the Union of India’s claim for a ‘top up’ had no foundation in any known legal principle. Either a settlement was valid, or it was to be set aside in cases where it was vitiated by fraud. However, no such fraud had been pleaded by the Center.
Continue reading
The Court stated that the doctrine of merger of judgement and orders in common law doctrine are founded on the principles of propriety in the hierarchy of justice delivery system.
Continue reading
Supreme Court reserves judgement in the Maharashtra political crises after hearing rigorous, head-strong arguments from both the Shiv Sena factions for more than a month.
Continue reading
It was alleged that each alleged ‘dishonour’ comprised of a separate offence and even if committed on the same date (i.e., within the same year), not more than 03 such offences can be tried by way of a single complaint in view of section 219 Cr.P.C. There is no legal clarity on bar of filing more than three cheques in Section 138 of the NI Act complaint as per Section 219 CrPC; Delhi High Court issues notice to NCTD.
Continue reading
The Supreme Court stated that if the purchasing dealer fails to establish and prove the said important aspect of physical movement of the goods alleged to have been purchased by it from the concerned dealers and on which the ITC have been claimed, the Assessing Officer is absolutely justified in rejecting such ITC claim.
Continue reading
In the case at hand, the juvenile had already undergone incarceration of more than 5 years which was against Section 18 of the J.J. Act, 2015. The Supreme Court noted that the intention of the legislature was to give benefit to a person who is declared to be a child on the date of the offence only with respect to its sentence part.
Continue reading
The Supreme Court however, ordered that a sum of Rs 50 crore lying with the Reserve Bank of India be utilized by the Center to satisfy the pending claims, if any, in accordance with the Bhopal Gas leak Disaster Act, 1985 and schemes framed thereunder.
Continue reading