The Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal, noticing the proposition as laid down in the board of Control for Cricket in India Vs Kochi Cricket Private Limited & Others decision of the Supreme Court (2018), noted that the amended Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is applicable on the court's findings only prospectively with regard to proceedings initiated on or after the commencement of the Amendment Act.
A recent Delhi High Court observation stated that a mere demand for dowry is not an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and vague allegations of intimidation are not harassment. It noted that the relatives were roped in owing to the general tendency in matrimonial dispute cases to rope in all family members even if they have no connection with the complainant. The High Court ruled that relatives had no case to answer and that further proceedings would be an abuse of legal process. The ruling reiterates the need for blood or concrete proof while making allegations under Section 498A, especially when distant relatives do not form part of the household of the couple.
Supreme Court of India recently held that the High Court cannot reject an application for bail just because the application has not been allowed to file afresh by the Supreme Court. supreme court made it clear in this decision that it is open to a person to file a new bail application even after the rejection of a previous application or cancellation of bail which had been granted.
In this case Supreme Court recently clarified important questions regarding registration of charitable trusts under Section 12-AA of the Income Tax Act. In the event a charitable trust is applying for income-tax exemptions under Section 12-AA, India’s top court held that authorities must make certain its intended activities comply with its stated charitable objects. Trusts must meet a 3-pronged test, Supreme Court has clarified that simply registering under Section 12-AA doesn't automatically grant a trust exemption under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act. If it fails to provide convincing materials, authorities can refuse exemptions.
Supreme Court overturned the death penalty on a man charged with murdering his wife and a12-year old daughter, ruling that his right to a fair trial had been violated according to Article 21 in our Constitution. In citing the verdict, the Court invoked internationalist law - both Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)-to stress for good measure that even those suspected of most serious crimes are subject to special norms protecting rights under law. honble supreme court added that all accused are entitled to the protections of Due Process and the assistance crafted for them by law.
The Supreme Court recently acquitted a husband accused of aiding his mother in setting his wife ablaze, ruling that mere presence at the crime scene does not establish common intention without evidence of active participation.
The Supreme Court emphasized that courts should take a liberal stance when considering bail applications under Section 437(6) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), particularly in cases where there is no risk of evidence tampering, the accused absconding, or deliberate trial delays by the accused. Section 437(6) CrPC: This provision allows for bail if a trial before a Magistrate is not completed within 60 days from the first date set for prosecution evidence, unless the Magistrate provides specific reasons for denial. Section 480(6) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) serves as its equivalent in the updated legal framework.
The supreme court of india stated that a dowry demand is not an indispensable prerequisite to constitute cruelty under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. It lay emphasis on this point. The section recognizes two kinds of cruelty-stop women physically or mentally, for instance, and also make them bear harassment to force a wife meet unreasonable demands of property or security.
Rajasthan High Court, has ruled in favour of the "right to be forgotten" for juvenile delinquents — affirming that a child's past errors should not chain him in. And so it ordered State to restore service for one constable who had been rendered jobless owing to non-disclosure of a juvenile record. It was declared therefore that the wiping out of juvenile delinquency records is an absolute right which the State must exercise to the full.
The Supreme Court recently ruled on a case where the Calcutta High Court directed parties to mediation without their consent, even in a contempt proceeding. Emphasizing that mediation requires mutual agreement, the Court held that it cannot be imposed. The High Court had earlier determined that the State was obligated to comply with a writ of mandamus issued on February 10, 2020. While initially issuing a compliance notice to the Chief Secretary, the High Court later referred the matter to mediation, a move the Supreme Court found inappropriate.
the Jammu and Kashmir High Court heard concerned a change made in land records that led to one legal heir (the petitioner's sister) being excluded from her deceased father's property although it did not say why anyone should exclude her. When the matter came up before the court, it held that there was no record either signifying Whether she had given up her rights or What was the applicable customary law in this situation.
A preventive detention order issued against a man accused of drug peddling was set aside by the Orissa High Court. The court held the order in breach of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, as grounds for detaining him did not specify all cases where the detaining authority decided to take action. On this basis, the High Court quashed both his detention order and the confirmation order made later, saying he'd had no chance to make an effective representation. The petitioner was ordered to be set at liberty.
The Supreme Court recently ruled on a case where the Calcutta High Court directed parties to mediation without their consent, even in a contempt proceeding. Emphasizing that mediation requires mutual agreement, the Court held that it cannot be imposed. The High Court had earlier determined that the State was obligated to comply with a writ of mandamus issued on February 10, 2020. While initially issuing a compliance notice to the Chief Secretary, the High Court later referred the matter to mediation, a move the Supreme Court found inappropriate.
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court said it had invited all high courts and related stakeholders to present their views on whether the method of appointing senior counsels should be reviewed. A three-judge bench, consisting of Justices Abhay S. Oka, Ujjal Bhuyan and S.V.N. Bhatti set the matter for hearing on 21 March. In addition, the bench clarified that Attorney General R. Venkataramani would argue the case next following Solicitor General Tushar Mehta. "We direct the Registrar (Judicial) to send a copy of this order along with the order in the Jitender Kalla case to the Registrar Generals of all the High Those Courts. This is to inform them that the hearing has been fixed for March 19. The high courts are free to send their reactions and proposals early on, " the bench pointed out.
The Telangana High Court reduced the sentences of certain individuals convicted under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC for killing a forest official. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the common object of the unlawful assembly, making each accused liable only for their own actions. It ruled that since no prior assembly with a common object was established, collective liability could not be imposed.