Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court: While addressing a matrimonial dispute, Division bench of Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh, JJ., held that, In cases where
City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore: Krishnamurthy R. Padasalgi, LV Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge upheld the order of the trial
Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet Singh, JJ., noted in a matrimonial matter that the wife was
Supreme Court: In the case where two different criminal appeals were being heard against two sets of accused, on account of one
Patna High Court: Noticing discrepancies in the Trial the Division Bench of Ashwani Kumar Singh and Anil Kumar Sinha, JJ., acquitted a
Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Unit, Bengaluru: Vani A. Shetty, XVII Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes & ACMM, addressed a
In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, the bench of S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, A. Varadarajan and Sabyasachi
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of G I Narendar and M I Arun JJ. allowed the appeal and set aside the
Supreme Court: The bench of Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka*, JJ has held that when the chain of circumstantial evidence is
The two proceedings, criminal and departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different fields and have different objectives.
“The power cannot be exercised in a casual and cavalier manner.”
Supreme Court: A Division Bench of Dr D.Y. Chandrachud and M.R. Shah, JJ. upheld the order of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvananthapuram,
Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J., granted anticipatory bail to a constable accused of rape and other offences as detailed below.
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., while addressing a revision petition in regard to maintenance of wife, held that Magazine covers are
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of B. V. Nagarathna and M.G. Uma JJ. held that the accused does not have a
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Vivek Thakur J. allowed the appeal and compensated the appellants because of false denial on thepart of respondents
Supreme Court: The bench of Navin Sinha and Krishan Murari, JJ has held that there cannot be any rigid standard or yardstick
“The ossification test can be said to be relevant for determining the approximate age of a person in conflict with law. However, when the person is around 40-55 years of age, the structure of bones cannot be helpful in determining the age.”
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Alok Aradhe and Nataraj Rangaswamy, JJ., disposed of the appeal after modifying the compensation. The
by Rajnish Kumar Jha*