Latest Judgements

01 Mar 2024

Vedant Baban Nandgavkar & Others Versus The Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti & Others (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, 01-03-2024)

01 Mar 2024

Bhagwan Dass Versus Delhi Development Authority & Others (High Court of Delhi, 01-03-2024)

29 Feb 2024

D. Babu & Others Versus S. Noorjahan Begum & Others (High Court of Andhra Pradesh, 29-02-2024)

29 Feb 2024

Ganpati Shankar Kage Versus The State of Maharashtra & Another (In the High Court of Bombay at Aurangabad, 29-02-2024)

29 Feb 2024

P.M. Bijoy Versus State of Kerala (High Court of Kerala, 29-02-2024)

28 Feb 2024

V. Senthil Balaji Versus The Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement (High Court of Judicature at Madras, 28-02-2024)

28 Feb 2024

Godrej Industries Ltd. Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, & Others (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, 28-02-2024)

28 Feb 2024

State of Kerala, Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Kerala (High Court of Kerala, 28-02-2024)

23 Feb 2024

Samita Rajendra Patil & Others Versus The State of Maharashtra & Others (High Court of Judicature at Bombay, 23-02-2024)

23 Feb 2024

M/s. Rds Projects Ltd.Versus State of Kerala & Others (High Court of Kerala, 23-02-2024)

Image

TOP STORIES

Image
10 February 202

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 124A, 153A, 153B, 120-B - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAP Act) - Section(s) 17, 18, 19- Arms Act, 1959 Sections 25 and 54 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439 – Bail-

mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail. (CDJ 2024 SC 087)

Image
22nd January 20

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955- Section 16(3) - partition of the coparcenary -

the children of void or voidable marriages shall be entitled to the property of the parent, where the parent had an interest in the property of a joint Hindu family governed under the Mitakshara Coparcenery. (CDJ 2024 SC 050)

Image
30 November 202

Code of Civil Procedure - Order I Rule 10(2) - entitled the Court to add necessary or proper party - A suit filed by the occupier/ tenant/ licensee seeking to restrain the local authority from taking action of demolition against the property,

where the landlord/ owner of the property seeks impleadment, the Court is empowered to permit the same exercising the power under Order I Rule 10(2) of Code of Civil Procedure on the premise that the landlord/ owner is a proper party. (CDJ 2023 BHC 1847)

FROM CDJ CITATIONS

The Secretary, Local Self Government Department & Others Versus K. Chandran - Supreme Court of India - DT :15-03-2022

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1998 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) - Service Matter - Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity - Claim for -

When can be granted - Respondent in appeal was working as Village Extension Officer, in course of his employment Vigilance Department registered a crime alleging that he had received Rs.500 as bribe and he was suspended from service and was later reinstated in service - He retired from service on superannuation while working as General Extension Officer - On conviction in a criminal case for violation of integrity norms in performance of official duties and an appeal pending before High Court, is employee still entitled to release of his Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity is the moot point arising for consideration in the present appeals - In view of there being a divergence of opinion, Division Bench considered it appropriate to refer matter to a larger Bench as two applications before KAT had produced different results.

State of Punjab & Others Versus Dev Brat Sharma - Supreme Court of India - DT :16-03-2022

Court Fees Act, 1870 - Section 7 –Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96, Order 7 Rule 11, Section 80, Section 151, Section 115 – Dificiency in court fees –

Applicability of Section 7 of Act, 1870 in Money suit - Money suit for compensation/damages filed – High Court allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent Dev Brat Sharma and further proceeded to reject the application of the appellant under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure after setting aside the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the Trial Court holding that the respondent (plaintiff before the Trial Court) was required to make good deficiency in the Court fees on the amount of Rs. 20 Lakhs claimed by him as compensation

Latest Articles

Image
16 May 2022

Indian Admiralty law made as Easy as ABC by - Justice Abdul Quddhose, Madras High Court

In many ways, the concept of Admiralty law is more or less similar to the law relating to properties on land and only the terminologies...

Image
16 May 2022

THE TWO CHILD NORMS - A FLASH BACK by - P.B. Sahasranaman, Advocate

Over 34 years of practice as a lawyer, with focus on Environmental Laws in India. Expertise includes Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) and other ...

Image
16 May 2022

WHETHER EUNUCH ARE RECOGNISED AS LEGAL ENTITY IN INDIA by - SHARDA

Constitution of India provides various rights to "persons." Person means artificial and natural person. Natural person include all human being.

Gallery

Latest News

18 Aug 2023

Orissa HC orders CBI probe as JEE candidate claims wrong mark sheet issued to him

18 Aug 2023

Consider installing panic buttons on CCTV camera poles: HC to police

18 Aug 2023

ED case against Senthilbalaji transferred to special Court

18 Aug 2023

Nashik lynching case | Court rejects bail plea of accused

18 Aug 2023

Court grants 90-day parole to serial killer Chandrakhant Jha

16 Aug 2023

HC stays case booked against assistant director for reciting a poem depicting Lord Rama to be involved in manual scavenging

16 Aug 2023

Delhi HC launches cause list accessible to visually impaired people

16 Aug 2023

Proceedings of all court halls in HC to be streamed live soon: CJ

16 Aug 2023

Supreme Court hearing on Article 370 abrogation live updates | Constitutional powers cannot be exercised to achieve political ends: Dushyant Dave

16 Aug 2023

Cracks on beam of Shree Jagannath Temple’s Nata Mandap must be repaired on priority, Orissa High Court’s Amicus Curiae tells Archaeological Survey of India

Most Awaited Judgements

Soumen Sarkar Versus State of West Bengal & Another - High Court of Judicature at Calcutta - DT :19-05-2022

This revisional application under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been filed by the petitioner principally against Jagannath Dubey, opposite party no. 2 praying for quashing of proceedings and impugned order dated 25.7.2013 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raghunathpur, District Purulia, in Complaint Case No. 2 of 2013 under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

In Re: Expeditious Trial Of Cases Under Section 138 of N.I. Act 1881 - Supreme Court of India - DT :19-05-2022

By a judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 ((2021) SCCOnline SC 325) various directions were issued with respect to the conduct of trials of complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

A.G. Perarivalan Versus State, Through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT/MMDA, Chennai, Tamil Nadu & Another - Supreme Court of India - DT :18-05-2022

Appellant is accused No.18 in Crime No. 329 of 1991 registered at Sriperumbudur Police Station for assassination of Shri Rajeev Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India, on 21.05.1991. The Appellant was convicted for offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), the Arms Act, 1951, the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, the Passport Act, 1967, the Foreigners Act, 1946, the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 and the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short, ‘TADA’). He was sentenced to death by the designated TADA Court. This Court, by a judgment dated 11.05.1999, upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant. However, the conviction and sentence under the TADA were set aside. The review petition filed by the Appellant was dismissed by an order dated 08.10.1999. The Appellant, along with three others, filed mercy petitions before the Governor of Tamil Nadu under Article 161 of the Constitution of India, which were rejecte