- UTTARAKHAND HC: THE OWNER IS REQUIRED TO DISPOSE OF EVEN AN UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW. – According to the Uttarakhand High Court, even an unlawful occupant of a property can only be removed from it in the ways permitted by law, despite the fact that it is a well-established legal principle that injunctions cannot be imposed against the genuine owner of the property.
TEJENDRA SINGH & ANR. V. MOHD. ANIS AHAMD
- HC – A husband is not allowed to take his wife’s possessions without her consent under the law. – The Delhi High Court found that the law does not allow a husband to take away his wife’s household items without her consent and knowledge when it denied pre-arrest bail to a man in a case filed by his wife alleging that her belongings were stolen while she was gone from the house.
AKSHAY DHINGRA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)
- SC – AWARDING A GOVT. CONTRACT REQUIRES A REASONABLE DEPARTURE FROM THE TENDER ROUTE – Government contracts must typically be awarded through a tender process, and any deviation from this must not be discriminatory or irrational, according to the Supreme Court, which noted that the State does not have complete freedom when spending public funds.
INDIAN MEDICINES PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION LTD VS KERALA AYURVEDIC CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.
- BEFORE SUMMONING ACCUSED, MAGISTRATE MUST VERIFY IF COMPLAINT CONSTITUTES ONLY CIVIL WRONG – The Supreme Court has ruled that the Magistrate must ensure that any ambiguities are resolved and should not issue a summoning order according to Section 204 CrPC lightly or as a matter of course when the alleged breach of the law is obviously debatable and doubtful.
DEEPAK GABA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
- SC: A SMALL DISPUTE OVER MONETARY DEMAND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST OFFENSE. – The Supreme Court has ruled that even if the complainant believes that a financial demand or claim is incorrect and not valid, an offence under section 405 IPC is not established in the absence of evidence proving that the action in question violated a legal agreement pertaining to the discharge of trust or another law.
DEEPAK GABA VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
- LAILA BHAGAWAL’S BAIL PLEA IN THE HUMAN SACRIFICE CASE IS DISMISSED BY THE KERALA HC – The bail motion made by Laila Bhagawal Singh, one of the defendants in the Human Sacrifice Case, was denied by the Kerala High Court.
LAILA BHAGAVAL SINGH V. STATE OF KERALA
- KARNATAKA HC PUTS A STOP TO A GUIDELINE THAT INCLUDES MARRIED DAUGHTERS IN THE EX-SERVICEMEN SCHEME – The Department of Sainik Welfare and Resettlement’s policy that barred married daughters under the age of 25 from receiving dependant identity cards, which would have allowed them to seek for government jobs under the ex-servicemen category, has been overturned by the Karnataka High Court.
PRIYANAKA R PATIL V. KENDRIYA SAINIK BOARD
- GUJARAT HC: ARTICLE 226 PROHIBITS COURTS FROM SITTING IN THE CHAIRS OF FINANCIAL EXPERTS – According to the Gujarat High Court, writ courts with jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution are not permitted to make business judgement decisions while sitting in the pews of financial advisers.
KIRTILAL RAVCHANDBHAI SANGHAVI & ORS. V. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.
Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this blog post is for general information and educational purposes only. Nothing contained in this blog post should be construed as legal advice from The Aran Law Firm or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter.
