Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Considering the reasons mentioned by the appellant for his absence, that he was under impression that the Court clerk would give him the date for which he had requested, is a sufficient explanation to interfere in the order of dismissal for non-prosecution.”
“In the name and interest of delimitation, the Government cannot postpone the entire election process of the Panchayati Raj Institutions indefinitely, contrary to the mandate contained under Article 243-E of the Constitution.”
“The cancellation of the Domicile Certificate would have civil and evil consequences, as such a right of hearing was mandatorily required to be provided to the aspirant, which admittedly has not been provided.”
The permission being granted by itself would not prevent the authorities from checking on the aspect of gambling that may take place at a particular place and if the same happens, necessary action under law can always be taken by the authorities.
In the administrative action where the decision of authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is necessary.
“It is mandatory for the Court to issue a reasonable notice of any Court proceedings, including any bail application filed by the accused, to the victim and the victim or the dependent of a victim has a right to be heard at any proceeding under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes Act (Prevention of Attrocities), 1989.”
Allahabad High Court noted that the penalty order does not appear to bring out any conduct of the petitioner as may indicate or establish collusion between the petitioner and the importing dealer.
“The opportunity of hearing, which the Officer is statutorily required to give to the person against whom an adverse decision is contemplated, is not an empty formality, and is a well-recognised principle of audi alteram partem, which has rightly been incorporated in Section 75(3) and 75(4) of the CGST Act.”
‘Audi alteram partem application cannot be impliedly excluded under the Master Directions on Frauds.’
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sunil B. Shukre and Anil S. Kilor, JJ., held that mandate of Section 34 leaves
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K Agrawal J., allowed the petition and held that forfeiture of earned remission of a convict is violative
Karnataka High Court: John Michael Cunha J., while rejecting the present criminal revision petition, elaborated on scope and ambit of Section 397
Allahabad High Court: A Division Bench of Govind Mathur, CJ and Chandra Dhari Singh, J. allowed and listed the present petition on 06-03-2020,
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of L. Narayana Swamy, CJ and Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J., dismissed an application which was
Patna High Court: Ashwani Kumar Singh, J. dismissed the application to quash the police report submitted by the investigating officer as it
Securities Appellate Tribunal (SAT), Mumbai: Coram of Justice Tarun Agarwala, (Presiding Officer), Dr C.K.G. Nair (Member), and Justice M.T. Joshi, (Judicial Member) directed
Gujarat High Court: A Bench of A.Y Kogje, J. partly allowed a petition whereby the case was remanded back to the Sub-Divisional
Kerala High Court: The Bench of Shaji P. Chaly, J. disposed of a civil writ petition against suspension under rationing order, allowing
Allahabad High Court: The writ petition was filed before a Division Bench of Abhinava Upadhya and Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, JJ., challenging the