Top Stories
'Scope Of Curative Jurisdiction Limited, Especially In Commercial Matters' : Supreme Court In DMRC v. DAMEPL Hearing
The Supreme Court today, while hearing a Curative Petition filed by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation challenging the Court's 2021 decision of upholding an arbitral award won by the Delhi Airport Metro Express Private Limited (DAMEPL), analysed the strictly high threshold to reopen a case through Curative Jurisdiction under Article 142.The CJI noted that when curative petitions are...
Electoral Bonds | Supreme Court Rejects Union's Argument That Citizens Have No Right To Know About Political Funding
Today (February 15), the Supreme Court delivered a historic judgment, holding that anonymous electoral bonds violate the right to information under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. While holding this, the Constitution Bench also upheld the voter's Right to Information about funding to a political party. The Court reasoned that such information is essential for a voter's freedom...
Supreme Court Seeks Union's Response On Plea Against HC Judgment Upholding Anti-Profiteering Provisions Under CGST Act
The Supreme Court on February 12 issued notice in a plea filed against the Delhi High Court order upholding constitutional validity of anti-profiteering provisions under the CGST Act and Rules.Passing the order, the Bench of CJI DY Chandrachud, Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra clarified that the issuance of notice shall not be construed as a restraint on the High Court for disposing of...
Suit For Declaration Of Title Without Seeking Recovery Of Possession Not Maintainable When Plaintiff Not In Possession: Supreme Court
Recently, the Supreme Court reiterated the well-established position of law that under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act of 1963, a suit for declaration of title without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable when the plaintiff is not in possession. In this regard, the Court also stressed that a plaint could be amended at any suit stage, even at the second...
N.I. Act | Directors Not Liable For Dishnor Of Cheque Issued By Company After Their Resignation : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (February 14) observed that the Director of the company wouldn't be held liable for the dishonor of a cheque issued by the company pursuant to the retirement of the Director unless some credible evidence is brought on record proving the guilt of the director.Reversing the findings of the High Court which refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the...
SCAORA Decides To Intervene In Supreme Court Case Regarding Advocates' Liability Under Consumer Protection Act
The Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association (SCAORA) has decided to intervene in an ongoing matter where the Supreme Court is deciding whether Advocates would come under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Essentially, the crucial point being examined by the Top Court is whether services rendered by the lawyers are covered under Section 2 (o) of the Consumer Protection...
How Much Each Political Party Got Through Electoral Bonds? Justice Sanjiv Khanna's Judgment Reveals
In his separate but concurring judgment in the Electoral Bonds case, Supreme Court judge Justice Sanjiv Khanna mentioned certain important data regarding contributions through electoral bonds.Based on the data from the website of the Election Commission of India and the details supplied by the petitioners, the judgment mentioned the following table regarding the contributions received...
Supreme Court Issues Notice On CBI's Plea To Transfer Trial Of Post-Poll Violence Cases Out Of West Bengal
In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (February 14) stayed the ongoing proceedings in various trial courts across the state related to incidents of alleged violence following the 2021 state assembly polls.The order was passed by a single-judge bench of Justice Sanjay Karol in response to a transfer petition filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), seeking...
Lawyer Assisting A Sovereign Function, Can't Be Brought Under Consumer Protection Act : Argument Before Supreme Court
Today, the Supreme Court resumed its hearing on the crucial point of whether services rendered by the lawyer would come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. The issue, which is relevant for members of the Bar, emerged from a judgment delivered by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2007. The Commission had ruled that the services rendered by...
Subramanian Swamy Moves Delhi HC Alleging Rs.5100 Crores Scam In Max Life's Transactions With Axis Bank, Seeks Expert Probe
By way of a public interest litigation, BJP leader Dr Subramanian Swamy has moved the Delhi High Court against an alleged scam of Rs.5100 crores involving Axis Bank making undue gains from transactions in shares of Max Life Insurance.The plea was listed today before the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora.Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao,...
Supreme Court Allows Withdrawal Of Petitions Challenging UAPA Provisions
At request of petitioners, the Supreme Court today allowed pleas challenging provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) to be withdrawn.The Bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Pankaj Mithal granted liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned High Courts.The bench also remarked that the interim orders of protection given to some of the petitioners will...
Prosecution Sanction Under Section 197 Cr.P.C Explained By Justice V Ram Kumar [Part-6]
Z. The necessity, if any, to examine the sanctioning authority as a witness before Court 27. There is no need to examine the sanctioning authority as a witness during the trial of the case before Court. What the prosecution has to prove is that the sanctioning authority applied his mind to the facts constituting the offence. If this is discernible from the sanction order...