Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Allahabad High Court: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. dismissed a writ petition filed for claiming compassionate appointment stating that compassionate appointment
Bombay High Court: Bharati Dangre, J. while hearing a bail application of a man accused of raping and impregnating a 14-year-old in
Delhi High Court: C Hari Shankar, J. opined that Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply in respect
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Ravi Malimath, CJ. and Vishal Mishra, J. allowed a writ petition directing
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Rohit Arya and Milind Ramesh Phadke, JJ. took strong exception to the functioning of
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench of Siddharth Mridul and Gaurang Kanth, JJ. dismissed the writ petition as it was filed after
Bombay High Court: Bharati Dangre, J. while adjudicating a bail application which dealt with an unfortunate incident of a girl
Armed Forces Tribunal (Lucknow Bench): The Division Bench of Justice Umesh Chandra Srivastava, Member (J) and Vice Admiral Abhay Raghunath Karve, Member
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Anand Pathak, J. allowed a petition which was preferred under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking
Supreme Court: The Division Bench comprising Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ., reversed the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court and held that
Supreme Court: On being apprised of 30 years-long delay in execution of an Arbitration Award, the Division Bench comprising M.R. Shah and
Supreme Court: In a significant case, the 4-judges Bench comprising of Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, P.S. Narasimha and Sudhanshu Dhulia,
Supreme Court: Reversing the concurrent findings of the Single Judge and Division Bench of Kerala High Court, the Bench of S. Abdul
Supreme Court: On being appraised of high number of pending bail applications in 10-14 years old cases, the Division Bench of Sanjay
by Hiroo Advani†, Sheikh Yusuf Ali†† and Manav Nagpal †††
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 18
Court of Appeal of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka: Menaka Wijesundera and Neil Iddawala, JJ. while deciding on a revision
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Sheel Nagu and Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, JJ., allowed the petition while hearing an appeal
Supreme Court: Dealing with an important question as to the constitutional validity of the third proviso to Section 254(2A) of the Income
“The State of Madhya Pradesh continues to do the same thing again and again and the conduct seems to be incorrigible!”
“The Supreme Court of India cannot be a place for the Governments to walk in when they choose ignoring the period of limitation prescribed.”