Prosecutors not bound to heed Government order regarding withdrawal of cases: Karnataka HC
A division bench of the Karnataka High Court recently noted “No Court is bound by such a decision taken to withdraw from the prosecution.R
Presence of malicious conduct of the parties if found, becomes sufficient for the court to not grant any relief to the concerned parties: Odisha High Court
“Presence of malicious conduct of the parties if found, becomes sufficient for the court to not grant any relief to the concerned parties”, thi
Inability to meet the requirements in a prospectus can lead to disqualification of a candidate: Delhi High Court
If a candidate agrees to the terms and conditions mentioned in the prospectus of a particular institution before applying for admission into it, he
Public interest means interest of State and Citizens- Karnataka HC
Public interest plays an important role in every field. Profession, academics, and career are all complementary and supplementary to each other and
Installation and Recording of CCTV camera’s mandatory in interrogation rooms of any authority to protect the victim from any violation of Human rights. – Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court in one of the recent judgments has held that in case a victim during an interrogation by any of the agencies like Police, CBI, NI
The statutory presumption of section 139, NI Act not to be overlooked; Karnataka High Court
The appellate Court has over-looked the statutory presumption provided under Section 139 of the NI Act even though the accused adduced evidence he
Provisions of Mental Healthcare facilities are essential: Madras HC
The effects of mental illness are often felt only by those suffering from it. Except for extreme cases, they do not manifest themselves in physical
Right to be Forgotten an integral part of an Individual’s Right to Privacy: Odisha HC
The Odisha HC headed by Justice SK Panigrahi found that “the information in the public domain is like toothpaste, once it is out of the tube one
Oral testimony is not enough to prove the ingredients of section 498-A IPC, the prove must be beyond reasonable doubt: Supreme Court
On consideration of the oral testimonies of the witnesses, the ingredients of Section 498-A IPC have not been proved against the appellant-accused
The superior authority can’t exercise its power u/r 219.4 after the lapse of the limitation period of 1 year: Patna HC
There is no provision under the Rule which has been shown to the Court which enables the superior authority/revisional authority to exercise power
