Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court took note that Soren had earlier filed a plea under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court but opted for withdrawal of the same to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court reiterated that in addition to punishing a contemnor for disobeying its orders, the Court can also ensure that such a contemnor does not continue to enjoy the benefits of his disobedience by merely suffering the punishment meted out to him.
“A commercial dispute, which ought to have been resolved through the forum of Civil Court has been given criminal colour by lifting from the penal code certain words or phrases and implanting them in a criminal complaint.”
The Bench had earlier deferred the hearing dated 10 Jan to 24 Jan, and yet again the matter got deferred.
The Supreme Court gave directions to the Central Empowered Committee, entrusted with monitoring and compliance of the orders of the Supreme Court on Environment, to promote transparency and efficiency in its functioning.
“The caste or religion of parties should not be mentioned in the memo of parties of a petition/proceeding filed before the Court, irrespective of whether any such details have been furnished before the Courts below.”
The Court observed that merely for being deployed in Assam, IPS Officers could not be denied benefit under 2007 Rules applicable across the board to their ilk serving across the country.
In December 2023, the Supreme Court had granted interim protection to the Vice Chancellor and other officials of SHUATS from arrest
Supreme Court clarified that the review orders and not deliberations had to be made public.
The High Court referred to Section 437 of CrPC for grant of bail in a non-bailable offence in three specific circumstances.
Referring to the ‘doctrine of necessity’, Supreme Court said that had the Working President did not convene the meeting, the elections of the executive body would have been in limbo for an unreasonable amount of time.
The Supreme Court took suo motu cognizance of the matter and, in a special hearing on Saturday, 27.01.2024, stayed the Single Judge Bench’s order directing the handover of case papers related to the alleged issuance of fake caste certificates to the CBI, despite a division bench stay order.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on circumstantial evidence.
In the case relating to allegations of issuance of fake caste certificates, the Single Judge Bench of the Calcutta High Court had directed the handover of papers related to the case of alleged issuance of fake caste certificates to the CBI, despite the stay order of a division bench.
The matter pertains to Uttar Pradesh Government’s ban on production, storage, distribution and sale of food products with a Halal tag.
Supreme Court remarked that the offence was serious in nature, and the High Court had considered all aspects while refusing bail in this matter.
“In the absence of any new evidence in further investigation to substantiate the conclusions drawn by the investigating officer in the supplementary report, a Judicial Magistrate is not compelled to take cognizance, as such a report lacks investigative rigour and fails to satisfy the requisites of Section 173(8) of the CrPC”.
Supreme Court stated that the respondents could not have claimed statutory bail as a right.
The Division Bench of Delhi High Court had stayed the order in V.R. Holdings v. Hero Investcorp Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1380.
This public flogging took place at Undhela village in Kheda district soon after the Muslim men were arrested on charges of pelting stones on a garba event.