Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In a clinical dissection of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Karnataka High Court stated that the victims’ grievances such as maintenance or shelter etc., must be addressed with immediacy, which is why the legislation has mandated a specific time frame.
Delhi High Court issues a circular that, it has come to notice that some of the Advocates/Litigants/Staff/Police & CRPF Personnel are still
“Any effort which weakens the system and shake the faith of the common man in the justice dispensation has to be discouraged.”
Madras High Court: Observing that, Litigants are compelled to accept the wrong orders in view of inaccessibility to New Delhi and the
Karnataka High Court: M. Nagaprasanna J. allowed the criminal petition and quashed the impugned order dated 30-07-2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge,
As on 31.12.2018, there were 11,80,275 execution petitions pending in the subordinate courts.
Litigants think that they can ‘hop on and hop off the case’ at any stage without any consequence using the slogan ‘pure justice’.
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Bhusan Barowalia JJ. dismissed the petition refusing to interfere with
Bombay High Court Advocates and the parties appearing in-person that, considering the precautionary measures due to outbreak of COVID-19, Chief Justice nominated
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Abhay Shreeniwas Oka, CJ and Vishwajith Shetty, J., laid down the guidelines to be followed for