Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The investigation against the accused was initiated as the main accused had named him but later it was discovered that it was a false accusation, as wife of the main accused had some disputes going on with accused person’s wife, hence, he was falsely implicated.
“State has neither executive nor legislative power to sub-classify or sub-divide or re-group the castes, races or tribes specified as the “Scheduled Castes” in the Presidential List notified under Article 341. Under the guise of providing reservation or under the pretext of taking affirmative action for the weaker of the weakest sections of the society, the State cannot vary, nor tinker the Presidential List.”
“The criteria for exclusion of the creamy layer from the SCs and STs for the purpose of affirmative action could be different from the criteria as applicable to the Other Backward Classes.”
“Article 341 does not create an integrated homogenous class. Sub-classification within the Scheduled Castes does not violate Article 341(2) because the castes are not per se included in or excluded from the List.”
“Legal reform through legislative correction improves the legal system and it would require assessment of the working of the law, its accessibility, utility and abuse as well. Executive branch has a constitutional duty to ensure that the purpose and object of a statute is accomplished while implementing it, along with duty to closely monitor the working of a statute and must have a continuous and a real time assessment of the impact that the statute is having.”
In Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali v. National Investigating Agency, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 11185, the accused under various provisions of IPC and UAPA was released on bail by the High Court, conducting a mini trial and determining admissibility of certain evidence which clearly exceeded the limited scope of a bail proceeding, hence, the Supreme Court in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5 SCC 1, cancelled the said grant of bail.
“The cross examinations are adjourned routinely which can seriously prejudice a fair trial and this practice is not healthy. The Courts should be slow in deferring cross-examinations. The mandate of Section 231 of the CrPC must be followed in its letter and spirit.”
In August 2021, Justice J.K. Maheshwari became the first Chief Justice from Sikkim High Court to be elevated to the Supreme Court and has served as Chief Justice of two High Courts, Andhra Pradesh and Sikkim High Courts.
In the matter at hand, the Court directed the tenant to deposit Rs.5,15,05,512/-, considering the location of the demised premises in the heart of Kolkata, the rent, the alleged non-payment of rent, the default in payment of interest, as alleged.
“The wife took advantage of the settlement executed before the Mediator and managed to get the matrimonial case instituted by the husband withdrawn and also accepted a sum of Rs. 50 lakhs from the husband as permanent alimony.”
The wife was found dead in the house in May, 1990. It was after several attempts for years, that the husband was apprehended on 09-08-2000 nearly ten years after the incident.
The Supreme Court rejected to halt the demolition of the temple but clarified that the Temple Samiti was not precluded from pursuing its remedies before the High Court in the pending proceedings.
The appellant paid the stamp duty of Rs.25,34,350 and purchased the stamp duty for registration of conveyance deed. However, the conveyance deed was not registered as the vendor had earlier sold the property in question to a third party in 1992.
The deceased was a BJP worker from the Dharwad zila panchayat from Hebballi constituency and was murdered on 15-06-2016. The matter was investigated by the CBI.
The Court allowed the ‘indigent woman’ to file an appeal as an ‘indigent person’, as her indigency was not extinguished by the compensation awarded, for she did not actually receive the money at the time of filing the appeal.
The premises in question was allotted in 2020 to expand the footprint of district judiciary.
The Court did not grant relief to Sisodia in his bail plea against Delhi High Court’s decision but granted him the liberty to revive his prayer afresh after filing of the final complaint/Charge sheet on or before 03-07-2024, after considering the assurance by Prosecution.
“If and only if, the service provider discharges its onus of showing that the service was availed, in fact for a commercial purpose, does the onus shift back to the complainant to show that the service was obtained exclusively for the purpose of earning its livelihood by means of self-employment.”
“As long as ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’ is applied in the manner as explained in All India Judges’ Association v. Union of India, (2002) 4 SCC 247, wherein both merit and seniority are considered, and merit plays the dominant role, the process of promotion cannot be said to be violative of the principle of ‘Merit-cum-Seniority’.”
On 28-05-2024, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi had mentioned the IA before the Vacation Division Bench of JK Maheshwari and KV Viswanathan, JJ. It was clarified that the criminal appeal was already heard and reserved on 17-05-2024 by another Bench and was also suggested that it would be appropriate to place the application before the CJI Dr. DY Chandrachud for appropriate orders.