Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
If statute provides for anything to be done in a particular manner, then it must be done in that manner alone and not otherwise and thus, the impugned order rejecting Siddique Kappan's discharge application is against the law propounded by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court noticed that in the case at hand, without giving any reasonable time to the investigating agency to investigate the allegations in the FIR, the Madras High Court has, in haste, quashed the criminal proceedings.
While Justice Shah stated that the Kerala High Court has erred in interfering with the judgment of Trial Court of passing a decree for specific performance; Justice Nagarathna affirmed the Judgment of the High Court.
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M.R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., reversed the impugned order of the Rajasthan High Court whereby
Karnataka High Court: Krishna S Dixit J. quashes the criminal proceedings as the SC-ST act is not retrospective in nature. The petitioners
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. and Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J. while dismissing the present petition
Madras High Court: The Division Bench of N. Kirubakaran and B. Pugalendhi, JJ., asked the State Government to file a report in the