Legal update as on 15.11.2022

legal-updates
  1. HC – PROSECUTOR’S REPORT MUST DISCLOSE PROGRESS OF INVESTIGATION; EXTENSION OF STATUTORY PERIOD – the Public Prosecutor’s report must include both the progress of the investigation and the justifications for the detention of the accused in order to request an extension of the 180-day deadline under Section 36-A(4) of the NDPS Act, 1985.
    UBAID A.M. V. STATE OF KERALA
  1. HC – SUIT FOR EVICTION FROM PROPERTY FOR RUNNING BUSINESS LIES BEFORE COMMERCIAL DIVISION – The Commercial Division of the Calcutta High Court has ruled that the only factor that should be taken into account when transferring an eviction suit is whether the premises that are the subject of the dispute were used for commercial purposes or not.
    MAHARSHI COMMERCE LIMITED V. RAJIV R. BALANI & ORS.
  1. SC: HIGH COURT CAN’T USE REMISSAL POWER BY ITSELF – According to the Supreme Court, a High Court cannot independently utilise its power of remission while also using its judicial review authority.
    STATE OF HARYANA VS DAYA NAND
  1. SC -LAWYERS WHO SIGN PETITIONS WITH DEROGATORY REMARKS ARE GUILTY OF CONTEMPT OF COURT – The Supreme Court has given notice to the petitioner and AOR on a plea that contains insulting statements about a High Court verdict and has said that anyone who signs their name to such critical allegations is guilty of contempt of court.
    MOHAN CHANDRA P. VS STATE OF KARNATAKA
  1. SC – DIRECT RECRUITS & PROMOTEES’ SENIORITY MUST BE DETERMINED PURSUANT TO SERVICE RULES – The Supreme Court ruled that a service’s standards must be followed to establish the seniority of direct recruits and promoted employees.
    AMIT SINGH VS RAVINDRA NATH PANDEY
  1. SC – IF SUSPECTS WERE SHOWN TO WITNESSES PRIOR TO IDENTIFICATION, TIP EVIDENCE IS INADMISSIBLE – According to the Supreme Court, Test Identification Parade (TIP) evidence is inadmissible if the witnesses saw the accused before the identification. Additionally, the court ruled that no TIP, not even one done in the presence of a police officer, is admissible.
    GIREESAN NAIR VS STATE OF KERALA
  1. SC TO CENTRE: REMOVE PAPER FROM GST APPELLATE TRIBUNAL – The Supreme Court has ordered the Union Government to make sure that all filings it makes in tax cases before High Courts and Tribunals are done electronically, and that the newly established Goods and Services Appellate Tribunal operates entirely paperless from the outset.
    C.C.E. AND S.T., SURAT I V. BILFINDER NEO STRUCTO CONSTRUCTION LTD

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.

Tags :

Share This:

Legal Updates