Legal Updates
Legal Updates
In the case of Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of U.P. (2013) the Supreme Court, in its judgment held that the police must register an FIR in cases where there is an information disclosing a cognizable offence and where the police officer denies registering the FIR it amounts to dereliction of duty.
A division bench of Justice Hrishikesh Roy and Justice Pankaj Mithal observed that the newspaper can be considered as a secondary source of evidence under the IEA. The bench was hearing appeals namely Kadira Jeevan v. State of Karnataka and B.S. Dinesh v. State of Karnataka.
A person below the age of 18 years cannot be in a livein-relationship and this would be an act not only immoral but also illegal, observed the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Saloni Yadav and Another v. State of UP and 3 Others.
National Green Tribunal (NGT) panel to probe illegal mining done by BJP MP Brij Bhushan Saran Singh in District Gonda, Uttar Pradesh in the matter of Raja Ram Singh v. State of UP.
The Bench comprising of Justice Manish Pitale observed the issue, of whether the specific mandate of the amended Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) applicable to a proposal for amendment of the plaint. The Bombay High Court (HC) gave the observation in the matter of Khanna Rayon Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Swastik Associates & Ors.
The Bench comprising of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Jitendra Jain of Bombay High Court has held if the appeal is defective, any adjudication on merits is not permissible by the Appellate Authority and would be without jurisdiction. The court laid the observation in a writ petition of JEM Exporter v. Union of India.
A bench comprising of Justice A S Bopanna and M M Sundresh dismissed the plea of Tamil Nadu Minister Senthil Balaji challenging his custody by Enforcement Directorate in the money laundering case. The Supreme Court gave the observation in the matter of V. Senthil Balaji v. T
A bench of Justice Ashwini Kumar Mishra noted that the principles of impartiality or independence have to be respected in the matter of appointment of arbitrator, and a party’s autonomy cannot be exercised in complete disregard of these principles. The Allahabad High Court gave the observation in the matter of M/S Bansal Construction Office v. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (YEIDA) And 2 Others.
The bench of Justice Sachin Datta observed that the court can make time bound directions to collector of stamps to decide upon an arbitration agreement that is unstamped. The Delhi High Court gave this observation in the matter of Splendor Landbase Ltd. v. Aparna Ashram Society.
the Delhi High Court in the case of Rakesh v. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr., has observed that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO) is a gender-neutral legislation and that it is insensitive to argue that the law is being misused.
The Delhi High Court has issued a series of directions to be followed by the authorities and doctors while dealing with survivors of sexual assault who are pregnant in the matter of Nabal Thakur v. The State.
The Madras High Court in the matter of Kajendran v. Superintendent of Police and others has held that when a minor seeks to terminate a pregnancy arising out of a consensual sexual relationship, the registered medical practitioner may not insist on disclosure of the name of the minor for preparing a report under Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Act, 2012 (POCSO).
The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Manoj Kumar and Anr. v. State of Delhi, has held that the object of the Section 498A of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is to deter dowry deaths of women by husband or kin, and the provision should not be used as a device against relatives “without reason”.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Sunil Juneja v. Sonia has held that a wife’s insistence to live separately from husband’s family members without any justifiable reason constitutes an act of cruelty.
The Apex Court in the matter of Rajib Kumar Roy v. Sushmita Saha, held that keeping the parties together despite irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty on both sides.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra noted that the incriminating circumstances should be of a conclusive nature, and they should exclude every possible hypothesis so as to prove the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Apex Court gave the observation in the matter of Kamal v. State (NCT) of Delhi.
The Karnataka High Court in the case of Nanjamma & Others v. Rajamma & Others, held that the relief of temporary injunction under Rules 1 and 2 of Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is a discretionary remedy. This remedy requires a careful balance between the need for interim relief and the ongoing legal proceedings.
In the matter of Rameshbhai Danjibhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat, the Gujarat High Court has held that a woman can file a case of bigamy and cruelty under Section 494 and Section 498A of the IPC even after divorce, but only for incidents that took place while the marriage was subsisting.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and J B Pardiwala noted that when it comes to quashing of the First Information Report (FIR), criminal antecedents of the accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline the petition. The Apex Court gave the observation in the matter of Mohammad Wajid v. State of UP.
The High Court of Delhi in the case of Dept. of Health, Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Kamla Mehndiratta & Ors., has observed that condonation of delay is an exception which should not be used as per convenience of the Government departments.
A bench of Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal noted that the remission granted by the Government to a life convict cannot be taken to mean that there is some portion of the life sentence that remains unexpired in the same sense as in the case of other convicts.
The Apex Court gave the observation in the matter of State of Andhra Pradesh v. Vijayanagram Chinna Redappa.
The Kerala High Court has observed that a woman living in live-in relationship can also file domestic violence cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) in the matter of Vineet Ganesh v. Priyanka Vasan.
A bench of Justices Salil Kumar Rai and Surendra Singh-I observed that the right of the petitioner to construct a Temple on his private property is protected by Articles 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India, 1950. The Allahabad High Court gave the observation in the matter of Acharya Pramod Krishanan Ji Maharaj v. State of UP and Ors.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah observed that the court can record the presence of a party who has led a substantial portion of evidence and failed to appear. The Supreme Court gave the observation in the matter of Y. P. Lele v. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Ltd. & Ors.
A bench of Justices M M Sundresh and J B Pardiwala observed that the principle governing “falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus” has got no application to the courts in India. The Supreme Court gave the observation in the matter of T G Krishnamurthy & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Sanjay Karol observed that an extra-judicial confession is always a weak piece of evidence however, it acquires credibility when corroborated with other evidence. The Supreme Court (SC) gave the observation in the matter of Moorthy v. State of Tamil Nadu.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Nabal Thakur v. The State held that Delhi Police’s Investigating Officers must produce the rape victim before the concerned hospital for conducting the procedure within 24 hours, even in cases where the gestation period of the pregnancy is less than 20 weeks.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Sri Satya Sai University of Technology and Medical Sciences Sehore v. Union of India & Ors. has observed that no dilution of the time schedule with respect to medical courses, is permissible under Article 226 of the Constitution of India (COI) in absence of any justifiable reason.
A bench of Justices Hima Kohli and Rajesh Bindal observed that a transaction shall not be deemed to be a mortgage unless the condition for reconveyance is contained in the document which purports to effect the sale. The Supreme Court (SC) gave the observation in the matter of Prakash (Dead) By LR. v. G. Aradhya & Ors.
The High Court (HC) of Karnataka in the case of M J Mathew & Others v. Prestige St. Johns Wood Apartment Owners Association & Anr., held that private association of owners of apartments does not qualify to be a State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India (COI).
A bench of B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan explained the existing stance of second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Supreme Court (SC) gave the observation in the matter of Bhagyashree Anant Gaonkar v. Narendra@ Nagesh Bharma Holkar & Anr.
Allahabad High Court has held that a person has a constitutional right to change his/her gender via Sex Reassignment Surgery (SRS) in the matter of Neha Singh v. State of U.P. And 2 Others.
In the matter of Annwesha Deb v. Delhi State Legal Services Authority, the Delhi High Court held that pregnant working women are entitled to maternity benefits and cannot be denied relief under the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Odi Jerang v. Nabajyoti Baruah & Ors., has observed that the procedure under Section 202(1) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), is mandatory when one of the accused is a resident of a place outside the Magistrate’s jurisdiction.
A bench of Justice J K Maheshwari and Justice K V Vishwanathan observed that if a person does not furnish information that is not required, it would not be termed as suppression of material facts. The Supreme Court gave the observation in the matter of State of West Bengal v. Mitul Kumar Jana.
The Supreme Court in the matter of S K Khaja v. State of Maharashtra, held that a conviction of an accused under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) can be sustained even if the injuries suffered by the complainant were very simple in nature.
The bench of Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra observed that the charge once framed must lead to either acquittal or conviction at the conclusion of the trial. The Supreme Court gave this observation in the matter of Dev Narain v. State of UP and Another.
The Supreme Court (SC) ruled that the Executing Court cannot dismiss an execution petition on consideration that the decree is unenforceable solely due to the property being taken over by a third party in the matter of Smt. Ved Kumari (Dead Through Her Legal Representative) Dr. Vijay Agarwal v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
The Supreme Court (SC) has observed the adverse remarks should not be passed against public officials unless necessary in the matter of State of Punjab v. Shika Trading Co.
The Supreme Court in the matter of M Sivadasan (Dead) through LRs v. A.Soudamini (Dead) through LRs and Ors., has restated that a Hindu female has to be in possession of the property for claiming rights under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act,1956 (HSA).
The bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand observed that a dispute under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (Act of 1961) cannot be termed as an ‘industrial dispute’ under the purview of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act of 1947). The Rajasthan High Court gave this observation in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation Limited v. Shri Narendra Singh Shekhawat & Anr. and Other Connected petitions.
