In a recent ruling on the Maharashtra Stamp Act, 1958, the Supreme Court determined that the refund of stamp duty for an unexecuted conveyance cannot be denied solely because the refund application was submitted before the execution of the cancellation deed. The court emphasized that if the refund application is filed within six months of the stamp duty payment, the applicant should not be denied the refund on this technicality.
The Supreme Court has deferred the bail plea of AAP MLA Jaswant Singh, who is challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on money laundering charges, to July 1. The Vacation Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and SV Bhatti heard Singh's plea, which contests the Punjab and Haryana High Court's decision that upheld his arrest. Singh is accused of being a director and guarantor for the company M/s TCL, which secured loans and credit facilities amounting to over Rs. 46 crores.
Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal has been granted bail by the Rouse Avenue court in the liquor policy case, requiring a bail bond of ₹1 lakh. Kejriwal was taken into custody by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) on March 21. The Supreme Court had previously granted him interim bail until June 1, considering the upcoming 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
Today, the Supreme Court ruled that an accused individual cannot request the transfer of a case involving the dishonor of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The vacation bench, consisting of Justices AS Oka and Rajesh Bindal, dismissed a transfer petition filed by the accused in such a case. Justice Oka noted that while the accused can request an exemption from personal appearance, they are not permitted to file a transfer petition.Today, the Supreme Court ruled that an accused individual cannot request the transfer of a case involving the dishonor of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The vacation bench, consisting of Justices AS Oka and Rajesh Bindal, dismissed a transfer petition filed by the accused in such a case. Justice Oka noted that while the accused can request an exemption from personal appearance, they are not permitted to file a transfer petition.
A Delhi Court ruled yesterday that the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI) arrest of Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal in the liquor policy case is not currently illegal. Vacation judge Amitabh Rawat of Rouse Avenue Courts, while remanding Kejriwal to CBI custody for three days, emphasized that although the arrest is not unlawful, the CBI should exercise restraint. He stated that investigation is the agency's prerogative and certain legal safeguards exist, but based on the current evidence, the arrest cannot be deemed illegal. Nonetheless, the agency should avoid being overly zealous.
1. Stricter Penalties for Gender-Based Violence:
Enhanced sentences for sexual assault and domestic violence, with new categories for various abusive behaviors.
2. Digital Evidence and Cybercrimes:
Clear guidelines for handling digital evidence and expanded definitions of cybercrimes, targeting online harassment, identity theft, and cyberstalking.
3. Streamlined Judicial Processes:
Measures to reduce case backlogs and ensure faster, more efficient trials.
This amendment marks a significant step towards a more robust and contemporary criminal justice system.
On Monday, July 1, the Supreme Court criticized an 'absurd' bail condition set by the Patna High Court. The condition required the victim of the offense to stand as the accused's surety. The Supreme Court expressed disappointment, noting that this condition had resulted in the petitioner remaining in jail for a year despite the bail order.
The Delhi High Court is set to hear Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's bail plea in the CBI case concerning the alleged liquor policy scam. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna will preside over the hearing. Kejriwal had previously been arrested by the Enforcement Directorate under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act related to the liquor policy case. Although the trial court granted him bail in the PMLA case on June 20, the Delhi High Court stayed this order on June 25. Subsequently, while still in judicial custody for the PMLA case, he was arrested by the CBI on June 26.
A peition is flied before supreme court for confiscating all the money which is collected by political parties. under the schme of electroal bonds of 2018 . on feburary 15 this year superme court stuck it down. The court had quashed the sechme and amendement which is made to the repersentions of people act and income tax. where as SBI disclose the details of electoral bonds purchased and enchaed from april 2019.All the electoral bonds is furnished by SBI.
A divison bench of karnataka high court directed BYJU's on friday to maintain status quo whereas, NCLT bengalure reconsider questions of the ed-tech firm should be restrained for providing with issues of second rigths. 4 investors who accused parent company and BYJU's.On 12 july NCLT passed an interim order. it was passed after investor.
The case began in August 1989 where three acussed who were convicted by the trial court for a murder which committed in 1989. as division bench justice shiv shanker prasad and justice rajiv gupta said about the doubt with respect bto dying declerations of the deceased-victim The court noticed the unexplained delay in registration of First Information Report (FIR) against the accused persons.The prosecution version is not clear for place where deceased died. The Court found in the statements of the complainant and other witnesses regarding the place where deceased was murdered.
The Court designated DDA's Bad habit Chairperson as the nodal officer to facilitate with different government offices and evacuate unlawful development from the banks of Yamuna. The Delhi high Court as of late requested the Delhi Improvement Specialist (DDA) to expel all infringements and illicit development on the Yamuna riverbank, riverbed, and channels streaming into the waterway.[Shabnam Burney v Union of India and Ors]. the cheif justice Manmohan and justice tushar rao gedela disiganted the vice chairman as the nodal officer to facilitate with the Civil Enterprise of Delhi (MCD), Delhi Police, Delhi Metro and other specialists for expelling the infringement on Yamuna. This is going to be herad by the court on 9th september to examine the courts order. DDA to clear yumana river is flied by Shabnam Burney, prused directions to bring down illegal construction on the Yamuna riverbank. Advocate Sumit Kumar appeared for the petitioner. CGSC Apoorv Kurup with advocates Hussain Taqvi, Nidhi Mittal and Gurjas Narula represented the Union of India. Advocates Arun Birbal and Sanjay Singh appeared for DDA.
We caution the open specialists to be cautious in exasperating or wriggling out of its legally binding commitments through implies past the terms of the contract in work out of their official. In [Subodh Kumar Singh Rathour v Chief Executive Officer and Ors] case on tuseday supreme court took edge case to west bengal minister firhad hakim for concelling the tender for maintenaces of two under pass in kolkata. Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra focused that open specialists must be cautious in aggravating or wriggling out of legally binding commitments through implies past the terms of the contract. The best court was managing with an offer against Calcutta high Court's choice to maintain the cancellation of the delicate issued by KMDA in 2022. In February 2023, the delicate was cancelled on a implied ground of a specialized blame. It was expressed that the delicate was ‘non-specific’ and ‘not well defined’ . Senior Advocate Shyam Divan appeared for the appellant, the original winner of the tender. Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi appeared for the Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority and its officials.
Justice Prithviraj K Chavan passed the order in a plea filed by Gandhi alleging that the trial court allowed RSS functionary Rajesh Kunte to “belatedly” produce certain documents [Rahul Gandhi v State of Maharashtra and Ors.] The Bombay high Court on Friday subdued a Bhiwandi court arrange permitting certain extra reports as prove in the criminal maligning case recorded against Rahul Gandhi by a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) laborer. justice Prithviraj K Chavan passed the arrange in a supplication recorded by Gandhi charging that the trial court permitted RSS functionary Rajesh Kunte to “belatedly” deliver certain reports A Bhiwandi Judge Court in Thane had on June 3 taken on record certain archives submitted by Kunte who is the complainant in the case against Gandhi. The Officer Court had permitted as prove the transcript of the charged defamatory discourse based on which the maligning case was filed.Gandhi challenged this some time recently the high Court on the ground that the Magistrate's arrange was in infringement of an arrange of a single judge of the high Court in another request recorded by Kunte which concerned the same maligning complaint. In 2021, single-judge Equity Revati Mohite Dere had rejected a appeal recorded by Kunte looking for affirmation or refusal of the charged defamatory discourse made by Gandhi. Equity Dere had contemplated that an charged individual might not be compelled to concede or deny annexures to the said petition. Gandhi claimed in the display request that in spite of the 2021 arrange of the high Court, the Judge continued to take on record the same archives which would compel Gandhi to either concede or deny the documents. The case emerged in 2014 when Kunte charged Gandhi of making defamatory articulations in a discourse expressing charging that the Hindu association RSS was capable for the death of the father of the country, Mahatma Gandhi. Kunte recorded a complaint some time recently the Bhiwandi judge in 2014. The Officer took cognizance of the complaint and summoned Gandhi for an appearance some time recently the court. This was challenged by Gandhi in high Court in 2014. He looked for subduing of the criminal procedures. In this request, Gandhi added a transcript of the supposedly defamatory speech. Even in spite of the fact that Gandhi's appeal was rejected by the high Court, Kunte fought some time recently the judge that by adding a duplicate of his discourse in the appeal, Gandhi unambiguously possessed up to the speech. The Officer Court, be that as it may, rejected this application which Kunte challenged some time recently the Tall Court. The high Court expelled this request in 2021 opining that simply since a archive of Kunte was added to Gandhi’s request, it would not make such a report a `public document’ in this way giving a total go-by to the Kunte from demonstrating the same in understanding with law. On June 3, 2023, amid Kunte’s examination by the court, the Judge took on record the same 2014 summons request counting the annexures in spite of fervent resistance by Rahul Gandhi, provoking him to move the high Court.
Surprisingly, the Police appeared to be unaware of the IPC having gone from 01.07.2024 and the BNS in place," the Court noted. The Karnataka high Court on Friday coordinated the State government to “sensitise” the police to start enrolling violations beneath the recently actualized Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and not beneath the Indian Correctional Code (IPC). Justice M Nagaprasanna issued the course whereas hearing a request recorded by one Geetha, challenging a to begin with data report (FIR) enlisted by the neighborhood police on July 1. The police had booked Geetha and her co-accused beneath a few areas counting Segment 447 and 504 of the IPC that relate to criminal trespassing and aggravating open peace. The applicant claimed that the police had enlisted the FIR as a counter to her having recorded a scorn request against them in the past. Justice Nagaprasanna famous that the FIR enlisted was on July 1 this year, the day the BNS supplanted the IPC. And however, the police had gone on to enlist the case beneath the IPC and not BNS. The Court issued an intervals directive against the police, controlling them from conducting encourage test against the applicant based on the said FIR. It said that the State must sensitise the police to get them to enroll violations from now on, beneath BNS only. “Surprisingly, the Police showed up to be unconscious of the IPC having gone from 01.07.2024 and the BNS in place...Since the wrongdoing is enrolled on 01.07.2024, it should to have been enlisted for the comparing offenses beneath the BNS and not beneath the IPC. In that light, there should be an between times arrange of remain of advance examination in Wrongdoing No.167/2024, qua the applicants, till the following date of hearing and a heading moreover to the State to sensitize all the jurisdictional stations to from this time forward enlist wrongdoings as it were beneath BNS and not IPC,” the Court said.