Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The applicant bore sole responsibility for any adverse effects arising from the inability to cross-examine the prosecutrix due to repeated delay tactics.
The Court deemed the Coordinate Bench decision in Narmadi Prasad v. State of M.P., as per incuriam, as it did not consider the Aadhaar Card’s intended use solely as identity-only proof.
In the instant matter, the husband deliberately took loan after the separation to bring down his net take home salary, therefore, the Court held that it cannot be considered as statutory and mandatory deduction.
The Court criticised the state of uncertainty among various officers due to inconsistent application of the Ordinance and suggested that the State Government should have provided clarity.
The Court noted that the land’s exclusion was based on expert recommendations and legal restrictions, including Regulation 119, which prohibits acquiring land within 45 meters of a railway or highway.
Madhya Pradesh High Court upheld orders restraining the petitioners from raising construction on the disputed land.
“After realizing that the Court may not pass a favourable order, if an attempt is made by a Lawyer to seek adjournment, then it is a glaring example of Bench hunting.”
The Court noted that the property in question, which includes ancient monuments like the Tomb of Shah Shuja, Tomb of Nadir Shah, and Bibi Sahib’s Masjid, had been declared as protected under the Ancient Monuments Preservation Act, 1904.
The Court directed the revenue officer to undergo a six-month training program to improve their understanding of judicial and quasi-judicial responsibilities when they pleaded inability to understand court order to reopen mutation file.
The Court dismissed the bail application with the liberty to the applicant to renew his bail application after the co-accused surrenders.
The Court stated that the applicants had not acted in good faith, as they failed to take necessary steps to maintain the road or close/regulate traffic despite knowing the hazardous condition.
The Court reiterated that the court cannot open its own order on merits specifically in the light of the bar as contained under Section 362 of CrPC.
The Court held that a writ petition against a show-cause notice is generally not maintainable, as established in Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28.
The Court stated that the petitioner’s failure to provide sufficient details and his criminal background further undermined his petition
The Court noted that the additional issue which states that “whether the registered sale deed dated 13.7.2017 was illegally executed” already covers all the ingredients which are necessary for execution of a valid sale deed.
The Court opined that the objective of a preliminary inquiry is to screen out frivolous and motivated complaints, not to ascertain the veracity of the information received.
If a person is of the view that the compensation has been paid to a wrong person, then the same can be a ground for making reference under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013.
‘Section 86(6) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, mandates the trial of an election petition to continue from day to day unless adjournment is necessary.’
The Court held that the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are penal in nature and not akin to civil recovery proceedings.
The Court stated that applicant’s inclusion of specific dress details not related to the actual incident suggests an intent to attribute the incident to a particular group, potentially inciting enmity and disrupting harmony.