Cognizance for extension was only for the period of limitation: Delhi High Court
The cognizance for extension of limitation awarded by the court during the Covid-19 pandemic was only on the ‘period of limitation’ and not the
Child has the right to use mother’s surname: Delhi High Court
A father does not own the daughter to dictate terms and every child has a right to use his or her mother’s surname. The child is free to use the
Apprehension of cross examination under Order- 26 R-2 does not have a legal foundation :High Court of Bombay
As per the provisions of Section 137 to 143 of the Evidence Act, the apprehension being entertained by the petitioners does not seem to have any le
The petitioner was released on bail upon furnishing bail bonds after being apprehended under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code: High court of Patna
The petitioner was taken into custody after being accused under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code,” Punishment for robbery.” This ar
A public servant will be granted protection in cases where the alleged offence was in the discharge of his official duty: Supreme Court of India
Section 197 of the CrPC protects a public servant in cases where it can be established that the alleged offence was committed while he was discharg
The petitioner was released on bail after being arrested under Sections 414/34IPC and 30(a)(d) of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act 2016:High court of Patna
The petitioner was taken into custody and was held behind bars under Sections 414IPC, “Assisting in concealment of stolen property”, section 34
Non-renewal of Route Permit is not the defence available to the Insurance Company to avoid liability to compensate the third party: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir
Enactment of Motor Vehicles Act is welfare legislation with an objective to give financial aid to the victims of motor vehicular accidents and also
Willful disobedience of the order of the court will amount to contempt: High Court of Uttarakhand.
Where the court had ordered for regularization of service of the petitioner and the opposite party willfully disobeyed that order, then it would be
“Appellant Authority was of the opinion that the respondent has adequately addressed the query and no interference of this forum is warranted at this stage…”: SEBI, Part 1.
The appellate authority under the RTI (Right to Information) Act of the Securities and Exchange Board of India comprising of Mr. Amarjeet Singh adj
Appellant has 8 queries regarding Karvy’s closure cum transfer application: SEBI, Part 4.
It was found that the said queries cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this context,
