The Court directed that in light of the present circumstances, the Municipal Corporation may initiate proceedings against the petitioners to evict them from their premises to carry out the project of widening the road from Diva Railway Station to Diva Circle.
The Calcutta High Court on 22nd February 2021 had directed the Administrative wing to examine matters relating to the quality and size of papers that are used for filing the pleadings, vakalatnama, etc., in the Courts of West Bengal and the Union Territory of Andaman and Nicobar Islands.
The present First Appeal was filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. They challenged the judgment and award, dated 13.9.2019, passed
This case concerns a bail application of the petitioners who were accused of being involved in the Hindu-Muslim riots that took place in North-East Delhi,
Justice Avneesh Jhingan in his order stated that “It would be appropriate to say that the right to peaceful protest is circumscribed by a thin line. The crossing of line may change the colour of protest. It would be subject matter of trial as to whether the line for peaceful protest was crossed in the alleged incident or not.”
The order stated that “when a patient is admitted to a hospital and suffers any injury or death which is not anticipated to occur in the normal course of events, even in the absence of medical negligence, the government is obliged to disburse ex-gratia to the affected party.”
The present First Appeal was filed by the appellant-Insurance Company, under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. They challenged the judgment and award, dated 13.9.2019, passed
The Tandav Controversy is well known to all. The show which is aired on the online streaming platform Amazon Prime Video hurt the sentiments of a particular religion and degraded the stature of police. The said case with mention to an anticipatory bail which was filed by Aparna Purohit, the commercial head of Amazon Prime Video.
The Centre in its plea negated the need for same-sex marriages. With respect to the Navtej Singh judgement, they stated that “only made a limited declaration to decriminalize a particular human behavior, which was a penal offence under S.377 IPC. The said declaration was neither intended to nor did, in fact, legitimize the conduct in question.”
There were 5 writ petitions filed before the Kerala High Court with regard to Rule 56 of the Kerala Education Rules and Section 2 (IV) of the Legislative Assembly (Removal of Disqualifications) Act. These laws bestowed on the teachers of aided schools the power to contest in elections. These provisions were challenged on grounds of being violative of fundamental rights.
Subscribe to our newsletter and receive a curated selection of legal updates directly to your inbox.
