Constitution of India

Ratio of Neeharika, (2021) 19 SCC 401, clarified and reiterated, that grant of any stay of investigation and/or any interim relief while exercising powers under S. 482 CrPC/Art. 226 of the Constitution is permissible only in the rarest of rare cases. Para 10. Despite the earlier judgment and order passed by the Supreme Court, again, […]

There is primacy of orders of High Court over those of statutory tribunals in case of conflicting orders. Law declared by the High Court in the State is binding on authorities and tribunals under its superintendence and they cannot ignore it. Further, tribunals are subordinate to High Court insofar as the territorial jurisdiction of High

Scope of rights of “victim” of crime, to participate in criminal proceedings, at various stages, including at stage of bail proceedings, particularly after insertion of S. 2(wa) vide CrPC Amendment Act of 2008, explained. Held, in the present case, the ‘victims’ have been denied a fair and effective   hearing   at   the   time   of   granting   bail  

Independent income, younger age and/or bigger family of maternal aunt cannot be sole criteria to tilt balance and deny custody to grandparents when capacity and/or ability of grandparents to take care of their grandson, cannot be doubted. Gransfather stayed in metro city where minor had better educational prospects, as opposed to maternal aunt who stayed

State on ground of delay and laches cannot evade its legal responsibility towards those from whom private property has been expropriated. While the right to property is no longer a fundamental right, it is pertinent to note that at the time of dispossession of the subject land, this right was still included in part III

In order to protect women victims of domestic violence occurring in a domestic relationship, the expression “joint family” in the DV Act, held, cannot be restricted to its meaning as understood in Hindu law and, thus, expression “family members living together as a joint family, means the members living jointly as a family of any

Fire accident resulting in death and injuries, thus joint and several liability of A) private organisers of the event for failure to take adequate safety precautions and vicarious liability of B) State/ state officials for negligence in performance of statutory duties. Where life and personal liberty have been violated, absence of any applicable statutory provision(s)

Held, having reappreciated the evidence of the witnesses, we find that the high Court was justified in reversing the judgement of conviction and sentencing the two of the accused with death penalty and imposing Upendra Ram to undergo life imprisonment and instead of acquitting all the accused. However directions to initiate proceedings of perjury against

Long practice which was being followed, if not contrary to law, must be given its true importance and ordinarily is not to be interfered with in exercise of power of judicial review under Art. 226. Held, appellant can certainly be relieved for that rotation year. Appellant directed to be considered for nomination as HoD/ Director when

Long practice which was being followed, if not contrary to law, must be given its true importance and ordinarily is not to be interfered with in exercise of power of judicial review under Art. 226. Held, appellant can certainly be relieved for that rotation year. Appellant directed to be considered for nomination as HoD/ Director when