Case Name: Suman Bansal vs. Union territory of J&K and Others [WP (C) No. 1062 of 2020] Excerpt In a judgement on 1st April, the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir observed that the prosecution must get fair and unbiased treatment and hence, directed the divisional commissioner to form a
Case Name: Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. Parden Oraon [Civil Appeal No. 897 of 2021] Excerpt The Supreme Court of India in a judgement on Friday (April 9, 2021) observed that compassionate employment was not a vested right that could be exercised at any time in future and therefore, compassionate employment
Excerpt The Supreme Court in a judgement on 6 April 2021, observed that just because the accused was poor and the sole bread earner of the family, it should not act as the mitigating factor while awarding punishment or sentence for a crime committed under NDPS Act. Facts of the
Excerpt In the judgement on 6 April 2021, the Supreme Court of India observed that in a petition filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, the Court cannot address the issue of novation of a contract containing an arbitration clause. Facts of the Case In the present
Case Name: Saurabh Sharma vs. Sub-Divisional Magistrate (East) & Ors. [W.P. (c) 6595/2020] Excerpt The Supreme Court in a judgement on April 7, 2021, ruled that a face mask is compulsory even when a person is driving a car alone and remarked that the mask is like a “Suraksha Kawach”
Excerpt In the judgment on Monday on 5 April 2021, the Supreme Court observed that a petition which is styled as one given under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court given under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Facts
Case Name: Intelligence Officer vs. Vijay Kumar [CRAA 37 of 2017] Excerpt The J&K High Court in a judgement on 1st April 2021 observed that the provisions of the NDPS Act are harsh in nature, therefore the procedural safeguards must be scrupulously complied with. Facts of the Case In this
In a judgement on 23 March 2021, the Supreme court observed that a message received by a cryptic telephonic call, which does not clearly specify the offence cannot be treated as an FIR.
In a judgement on 22 March 2021, the Supreme Court held that in the absence of a formal application, the court/tribunal may exercise its discretion to forgive delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
In a judgement on 18 March 2021; the Supreme Court ruled down that judges should avoid using patriarchal and stereotypical notions about women and suggested that the judges should be trained on gender sensitization. It was also ruled that the course on gender sensitization should be included in LLB and AIBE syllabus.
Subscribe to our newsletter and receive a curated selection of legal updates directly to your inbox.
