Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court observed that the child who was being examined in the case at hand was in the category of a child witness who is vulnerable and a victim of sexual assault by her own father, and it was not a new phenomenon in criminal jurisprudence.
Orissa High Court said that a criminal trial is not an IPL T20 match where every ‘substitute player’ can be an ‘impact player’, engaging a new State Defence Council without providing him police papers is gross illegality.
Supreme Court was quick to clarify that if prosecution was unable to prove its case on its own legs, then it won’t be able to derive advantage from the weakness of the defence and the Court would not be able to convict the accused on the strength of the evidence in the form of reply to the suggestions made by the defence counsel to a witness.
Upholding the Karnataka High Court order, the Supreme Court held that the Karnataka High Court has not committed any error in permitting the respondents to file affidavits/additional evidence in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. However, permitted the appellant to cross-examine and/or produce contrary evidence.
Delhi High Court: In a case, wherein an appeal was filed under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 (Act)
If the Court would allow such an interpretation, then this provision would become redundant, and a floodgate of law graduates, who may not be enrolled with the bar councils to become an ‘advocate’ but are still practicing law, would pour in. The purpose of keeping the proceedings fact-based and free expert legal advisory, would be lost.
Allahabad high Court: In an appeal filed against the judgment and order passed by Sessions Judge, convicting and sentencing the
The Supreme Court was disappointed with the standard of investigation and the defence put up in a gruesome case relating to murder of wife and 4 children by the accused. The Court observed that while the accused was provided with a legal aid, the cross-examination of each and every witness was below average.
Allahabad High Court: In an appeal filed under Section 378 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) against the judgment passed by the
Allahabad High Court: In an appeal against the decision of the Trial Court whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced to
JSA, Advocates & Solicitors, in collaboration with Osborne Partners, Clifford Chance, 39 Essex Chambers, IAMC Hyderabad and SCC Online Blog organised a
JSA, in collaboration with Osborne Partners, IAMC Hyderabad, Clifford Chance and SCC Online Blog (exclusive media partner), invites you to a session
Karnataka High Court: M Nagaprasanna, J. allowed the petition filed seeking further cross examination of the child victim as the victim has
Karnataka High Court: M Nagaprasanna J. allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order and remitted the matter back to Sessions Judge
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sandeep Sharma, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order dated 17-07-2017. The facts of the case
Orissa High Court: A Division Bench of S. Muralidhar CJ. and B. P Routray J. dismissed the petition being devoid of merits.
Karnataka High Court: John Michael Cunha J., allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. The case involves default under Section
by Jeet J Bhatt*
Delhi High Court: Brijesh Sethi, J., allowed a criminal writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay K. Agrawal, J., allowed a second appeal against the order of the trial court as well as the First