Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
It is the case of the plaintiff that an unknown person/person, arraigned in the suit as Defendant 2 has started a YouTube channel under the name of ‘@AnajanaomKashya’
“The scale of this deceit is symptomatic of systemic abuse, where absence is weaponised and legal safeguards are routinely undermined. These offences not only impact the personal and financial security of the victims but also have cascading effects on public trust in the real estate ecosystem, and ultimately, the economic stability of the State.”
“There is a great sanctity attached to the proceedings conducted in the Court. No professional much less legal professional, is immune from being prosecuted for his/her criminal misdeeds.”
The case of fake signatures came before the Court, when the petitioner approached the Court in person, stating that he did not know either of the Advocates who were appearing on his behalf and that he came to know of the SLP filed in his name, when the Police Station served notice upon him.
The Petitioner is accused of a very serious offence of impersonation. It is the allegation that somebody else appeared on his behalf to take Foreign Medical Graduate Exam (FMGE).
The case of the prosecution that tele-callers were impersonating themselves as employees of Amazon and receiving calls from customers, who were facing problems related to Amazon Prime Videos and other services provided by Amazon.
“The unknown operators of the profiles and groups are not associated with Akshay Tanna or KKR Advisors India (P) Ltd. and have not been authorized in any manner to offer financial trading and investment related advice on their behalf.”
“This Court will certainly not shut its eyes to the materials unearthed, since it relates not only to maintaining purity in judicial proceedings but upholding public faith in the system at large.”
by Raj Panchmatia†, Haabil Vahanvaty†† and Roselin Alex†††
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 74
In case of an alleged mismatch of details of the candidate during document verification, the caste certificate ought to be read in conjunction with other documents.
The Marriage Registration Authority submitted that in view of the advancement in the technology in Artificial Intelligence, the possibility of somebody impersonating Petitioner cannot be ruled out.
If there is cogent evidence that the accused was shown to prosecution witnesses, refusal to participate in test identification parade by accused is justified and the said test identification parade cannot be used against the accused for any purpose. If identification in Test Identification Parade has taken place after the accused is shown to the witnesses, then not only is the evidence of Test Identification Parade inadmissible, even an identification in a court during trial is meaningless.
The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR registered against the law intern who projected himself as a proxy counsel on the instructions of his Advocate and the Court observed that the law interns who were merely students should be counselled, properly informed, and instructed instead of registering FIRs against them.