Supreme Court seeks explanation from Registry to explain premature listing of bail application in money laundering case
Supreme Court suspected potential manipulation, indicating that someone might be purposely controlling the listing process.
Supreme Court suspected potential manipulation, indicating that someone might be purposely controlling the listing process.
“For a long time, the parties are placing on record black and white photocopies of photographs, mostly which are blurred.”
“The Office is duty bound to list matters before the concerned Judge strictly as per the roster, unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Justice. Any deviation from this direction, thereby causing difficulty to the Judges or Advocates appearing in the matter, will invite disciplinary action against the officials concerned.”
The Court requested all the Judges to refrain from adjourning the subject cases except for rare and compelling reasons.
Rajasthan High Court stated that what baffles the Court is “how the Registry anticipates this Bench to navigate through this labyrinthine situation, akin to unscrambling a scrambled egg”.
“To create life and give birth to the child is the God gifted power that lies with the mother. But here is a situation where her own creations or sons are not interested to even meet her, let alone live together.”
The Delhi High Court extended the scope of Section 16 of the Court Fees Act, 1870 by holding that the cases in which suit is stayed due to imposition of moratorium would fall within the ambit of Section 16.
The Delhi High Court holds that there is no requirement in law to implead the victim to any criminal proceedings, whether instituted by the State or by the accused. The Court further directed the Registry to ensure that anonymity of the victims is strictly maintained.
The conviction and sentence awarded to a man in 2003 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder has been set aside by the Delhi High Court more than 19 years after the appeal was filed, due to the persistent inability to locate or reconstruct the trial court record.
Bombay High Court: In a case where the Court came across highly objectionable photographs annexed by the counsel for the
Advocates-on-Record Examination, 2021 Supreme Court of India notifies that the Advocates-on-Record Examination, 2021 which was earlier scheduled to be held on 8th,
Madras High Court: G.R. Swaminathan, J., held that irrespective of whether the proceedings under Central Act 43 of 2005 are of civil
Delhi High Court: While dismissing the matter, Suresh Kumar Kait, J., stated that a very unpleasant situation came before the Court during the
Supreme Court has issued a circular dated 27.07.2020 notifying that the Advocate-on-Record and Party-in-Person shall file soft copy of the petition as