Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court commented on the patent illegalities and the pro-active exercise of multiple jurisdictions in the instant case.
Supreme Court said that as four of the six cases have been filed by the respondent company before the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi and only two such cases are pending before the Courts at Nagpur, it would be convenient and in the interest of all concerned, that the cases be transferred to the Dwarka Courts at New Delhi.
Supreme Court observed that the principles of Administration of Justice states that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to be done and free and fair trial is sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The Teacher in Indian society has been elevated to a higher position than God. A teacher creates knowledge, learning, wisdom and equips the students with ability and knowledge, discipline and intellect to enable them to face challenges of life. A teacher is a preserver of learning and destroys ignorance. Therefore, as a member of the noble teaching profession, he should be a role model.”
Rajasthan High Court: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J., allowed a transfer petition in the infamous deer hunting case of actor Salman Khan. An
Rajasthan High Court: Chandra Kumar Songara J. allowed the petition of the wife-petitioner on the grounds of having a child, no source
Rajasthan High Court: Rameshwar Vyas, J. allowed the transfer petition and transferred the matter to the Family Court, Ajmer. The instant transfer
“While the hardship, both social and financial, pleaded by the petitioner deserves favourable consideration, the transfer of the case at this stage of the proceeding may not be appropriate.”
“The transfer of trial from one state to another would inevitably reflect on the credibility of the State’s judiciary. Except for compelling factors and clear situation of deprivation of fair justice, the transfer power should not be invoked.”
Supreme Court: In a case where the husband and wife both sought transfer of cases filed against by both of them against
Kerala High Court: Shircy V., J. allowed the transfer petition of the petitioner’s matrimonial dispute cases to the Family Court most convenient
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Dipankar Datta, CJ, and A.S. Gadkari, JJ., deferred the hearing for PIL’s filed in view of
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Sandeep Sharma, J. allowed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India with Section 24
Sikkim High Court: The Bench of Vijai Kumar Bist, CJ, disposed of a transfer petition in which the District Judge, Special Division-
Punjab and Haryana High Court: The Bench of H.S. Madaan, J., allowed an application seeking transfer of Petition under Section 9 of
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J., allowed a petition filed under Article 227 of
National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi: Cyrus Investment, the petitioners filed an application under Rule 11, read with Rule 16 of the