Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In the present case, the video clip showed a Senior Advocate talking on his phone and drinking from a beer mug while attending virtual court proceedings.
In the present case, the live wires were hanging and had come near to the ground while touching the trees. Thereafter, due to negligence on the part of the board, the Respondent 2’s son died untimely.
It was not the prosecution’s case that any demand for dowry or any valuable security or other property was made by the accused. Rather, it was an admitted case that the only demand was to arrange Rs 50,000 to meet the legal expenses for applying bail of the husband and her father-in-law, who were in judicial custody.
The respondents submitted that the sale deed in question had been retained by the Registrar due to insufficiency of stamp and was thus, not in their possession.
The prosecution’s case was mainly with respect to the dying declaration of the deceased woman to the medical officer who treated the woman. However, the trial court observed that the dying declaration was a cyclostyled document, and the endorsement of the doctor was taken later.
The Court noted that the registry did not follow the procedure prescribed in the GHC Rules for movement of the papers from the registry to the competent Court, thus there was no occasion for consideration by the Court concerned as to whether the respondents were entitled to condonation of delay in removal of office objections.
The Court directed the respondents to publicise the pre-requisite conditions necessary to be fulfilled before a premise may be used as a PG Hostel or a Home Stay.
The counsels for the Narayan Sai urged that the final hearing of the appeal may take considerable time and therefore, at this stage, Narayan Sai may be enlarged on temporary bail for a period of 15 days to meet his ailing father.
Justice Nilay Vipinchandra Anjaria was serving as the 34th Chief Justice of Karnataka High Court prior to being appointed as Judge of Supreme Court in May 2025.
The Union contended that Sunil had not paid anything to the various banks that had given credit facilities amounting to approximately Rs. 2947 Crores to the Sai Infosystem (India) Ltd.
“The Government Resolution confers financial benefits as a benevolent resolution acknowledging the contribution of such employees who have expired while performing essential services during the Covid-19 pandemic on behalf of the State Government.”
The Family Court while decreeing the dissolution marriage, had directed the appellant-husband to pay a sum of Rs. 70 lakhs towards permanent alimony to the respondent-wife.
“It is evident that the petitioner is blackmailing and is trying to extort money from the businessmen of the Surat city by creating fear in their mind that if they do not shell money, he would make a complaint of violation of one or the other laws.”
The Court stated that the fact remained that seven patients were forced to undergo the procedure of angioplasty without their wish and without any need in some cases. Furthermore, the material on record suggested that no proper post operational care was taken.
The Court noted that Narayan attempted to bribe government officials and had a poor conduct in jail due to which he was punished several times. Additionally, cases had been registered against his disciples for threatening or assaulting the witnesses.
“The re-evaluation of the marks beyond the specified period at the discretion of the GPSC at any stage will be an anathema to the finalization/conclusion of the result. The final merit list or the result will always remain in the state of flux putting the career of the candidates at peril if such an approach, is allowed to be adopted.”
The Supreme Court Collegium in March 2025, had recommended the names of 8 Judicial Officers for appointment as High Court Judges.
The Court stated that since the land was a notified water body and no construction could be permitted on it, the constructions carried out by the residents was illegal.
The Court held that the petitioner was the alleged girlfriend of the complainant’s husband, and no other status or relation had been assigned to her for prosecution under Section 498A of the IPC.
In the present case, the Supreme Court examined the vagaries of IP law and the intrinsic synergy that exists between two independent legislations, namely the Designs Act and the Copyright Act.