Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court said that the Home Guards shall be entitled to the periodical rise which may be available to the Police personnel of the State and the DCA to be paid to the Home Guards be periodically increased taking into consideration the minimum of the pay to which the Police personnel of the State are entitled considering periodical increase from time to time.
Supreme Court said that if the sentence carrying a maximum sentence of death and a minimum sentence of life sentence has such low evidentiary threshold, the difference between punishments for kidnapping under 363, 364 and 364-A shall become meaningless.
Madras High Court quashed the rejection order dated 08-11-2022 passed by the RDO with respect to the petitioner’s applications and remitted back the matters to the RDO for passing fresh orders
Supreme court said that if criminal prosecution is based upon adequate evidence and the same is otherwise justifiable, it does not become vitiated on account of significant political overtones and mala fide motives
Supreme Court said that there is no reason to deviate from the view taken in the previous decisions of this Court, thus granted anticipatory bail to the accused without imposing any condition as suggested by Additional Solicitor General
Supreme Court said that as four of the six cases have been filed by the respondent company before the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi and only two such cases are pending before the Courts at Nagpur, it would be convenient and in the interest of all concerned, that the cases be transferred to the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi.
In a case related to caste-based discrimination against an associate professor of IIT-K by fellow faculty members, the Supreme Court played a conciliatory role and handled a very sensitive matter with equal sensitivity.
Supreme Court held that the respondent could not have been given the pensionary benefits as Scientist -H in NTRO, as before her probation period was completed, she was relieved.
Supreme Court upheld the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s order holding the respondent as the owner of the encroached land, as an encroacher cannot claim benefit of Section 51 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
In a case of Cross FIRs relating to murder and attempt to murder, the Supreme Court has granted bail to the main accused in the murder case
Supreme Court said that the conduct of the judge and her/his decisions must reflect and show independence, adherence to the democratic and constitutional values. This is necessary as the judiciary holds the centre stage in protecting and strengthening democracy and upholding human rights and the Rule of law.
In petitions challenging the premature release of 13 life convicts by the State Government, the Madras High Court held that there is no reason to infer that the State has failed to consider relevant materials or passed the order of premature release for extraneous considerations.
Supreme Court dismissed the petitions filed by lawyers from Madras HC alleging that Gowri is disqualified from being appointed a judge of a Constitutional Court, as there was no fruitful consultation between the executive and the collegium regarding her antecedents that could reveal her biasness against the minorities in the country.
Supreme Court refused to entertain a plea moved by the consortium and upheld the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal’s order directing the consortium to pay the provident fund and gratuity dues of the employees of Jet Airways
5-Judge Constitution Bench in a miscellaneous application filed to seek modifications of guidelines prescribed in 2018 Euthanasia Judgment, viewed that the guidelines need modifications. Thus, simplified the process for passive euthanasia.
Upholding the Karnataka High Court order, the Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court has not committed any error in permitting the respondents to file affidavits/additional evidence in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. However, permitted the appellant to cross-examine and/or produce contrary evidence.
Supreme Court has ordered that the Rajasthan High Court's impugned order being interlocutory in nature, shall not be treated as precedent for cancellation of bail granted to the petitioner in other cases, and the question of law was kept open to be decided in an appropriate case.
The Supreme Court observed that the defendants, being in possession, would be entitled to protect and save their possession, unless the person who seeks to dispossess them has a better legal right in the form of ownership or entitlement to possession.
The Supreme Court observed that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited and that the Madras High Court ‘could not have interfered with the finding of acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court.