Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
While dealing with an appeal in a Title suit for partition, Jharkhand High Court considered the admissibility of disputed relationship of a mother and son through witnesses lacking ‘special means of knowledge’ as required under Section 50 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
Central Information Commission: In the second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act,
Central Information Commission: In a second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on
Supreme Court: The bench of Indira Banerjee* and JK Maheshwari, JJ has explained that to be ‘substantial’, a question of law must
Central Information Commission: In a second appeal filed under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the ground of
“Giving reasons for the conclusion is necessary as it helps the adversely affected party to understand why his submissions were not accepted.”
Sikkim High Court: Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J., dismissed the second appeal explaining that the second appeal is maintainable before the High Court
Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Ali Mohammad Magrey, J., held that once an appeal is duly entertained without the production
Supreme Court: A 3-Judge Bench of N.V. Ramana, CJI and A.S. Bopanna and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. upheld the judgment of the Madras
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Rajbir Sehrawat, J., allowed the instant second appeal challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Jyotsna Rewal Dua J., dismissed the appeal on ground of impugned judgment/orders being devoid of any infirmity. The
Central Information Commission (CIC): Amita Pandove (Information Commissioner) while addressing the present second appeal observed that the exemption of Section 8(1)(j) of
Supreme Court: The bench of Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee, JJ has held that when no substantial question of law is formulated,
Central Information Commission (CIC): Amita Pandove (Information Commissioner) disposed of the second appeal filed seeking information regarding the tea stall that was issued
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Ajay Mohan Goel, J. dismissed the appeal on finding no substantial question of law involved in the appeal.
Supreme Court: The Court, yet again, reminded the High Courts of the limitations under Section 100 CPC and said: “despite the catena
Supreme Court: M.M. Shantanagoudar, J speaking for himself and N.V. Ramana, J. allowed an appeal filed against the judgment of the Patna