Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Section 22(1) of the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950 provides for change when same is desired in the interest of the administration of public trust, therefore, changing name at the behest of and on the directions of Charity Commissioner will not fall within the provisions of Section 22(1) of the said Act.
“The fact that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe may have caused some discomfort among the Trustees, leading to the denial of access. Such conduct by the Trustees is unacceptable.”
“There can be no copyright claimed in the Scriptures. However, any adaptations of the said work including providing explanation, summary, meaning, exegesis/interpretation or creating any audio-visual works being transformative works, will be entitled to copyright protection.”
On 3-7-2023, the Securities and Exchange Board of India (‘SEBI’) notified the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Alternative Dispute Resolution Mechanism) (Amendment) Regulations, 2023
“Expression Whoever alienates or purchases or takes possession of, which is the opening phrase of Section 52A of the Wakf Act, 1955, cannot be read or construed to include possession taken in the past, which resulted in continued possession, when the provision was enacted.”
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Rohit Arya and Milind Ramesh Phadke, JJ., admitted a petition which was filed to
Supreme Court of India: While deliberating on the instant appeals expressing grievance over the judgment of Andhra Pradesh HC (Amravati) wherein it
Supreme Court of India: Noting the donations being made to the Trust to be ‘bogus donations’ Bench of Uday Umesh Lalit and
Kerala High Court: A Full Bench of A.M. Shaffique, Sunil Thomas and Gopinath, JJ., held that there is no limitation period for wife/divorced wife
Uttaranchal High Court: Lok Pal Singh, J., addressed an application that sought to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 468, 471 of
Kerala High Court: B Sudheendra Kumar, J. allowed the petition and quashed the complaint and further proceedings against the petitioners which were
Madras High Court: The Bench of M. Nimal Kumar, J. refused to quash proceedings pending on the file of Judicial Magistrate (III), Coimbatore.
Supreme Court: The bench of Madan B. Lokur and P.C. Pant, JJ held that a Trust cannot file a complaint under the