Even though the Supreme Court refrained from granting legal recognition for same-sex marriages, it did make a strong call to the State to take steps to end the discrimination faced by queer couples and to ensure protection for their right to cohabitation.The Court clearly observed that the discrimination faced by the queer community due to […]
The panel feels that the provision is a very effective addition, many terms used must be clearly defined to avoid uncertainty.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (18.10.2023) allowed a woman with Mayer-Rokitansky-Kuster-Hauser (MRKH) Syndrome, a condition that prevents her from producing eggs, to undergo surrogacy using a donor egg. The Apex Court did so, by staying the operation of a recent amendment to the Surrogacy Rules, with respect to the petitioner. The amendment introduced in March
The Supreme Court today (16.10.2023) rejected the plea of a married woman to abort her third pregnancy which has crossed 26-week on the ground that she was suffering from post partum psychosis after her previous delivery in September 2022. The order was passed by a bench comprising CJI DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice
Interesting legal facts about REFUGEE :
Interesting legal facts about REFUGEE… Read More »
X Vs. Union of India and Anr. [Miscellaneous Application No. 2157 of 2023] [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1137 of 2023] Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI Table of Contents A. Facts and procedural history …………. 3 B. The medical termination of pregnancies …………… 10 C. Analysis ………………….. 15 i. The jurisdiction of this Court to hear
C.I.T., Delhi Vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd.[Civil Appeal No(S). 11128 of 2016][Civil Appeal No(S). 4902/2022][Civil Appeal No(S). 162/2018][Civil Appeal No(S). 159/2021][Civil Appeal No(S). 4839/2017][Civil Appeal No(S). 153/2021][Civil Appeal No(S). 6897/2018][Civil Appeal No(S)._______ of 2023 @ SLP (C)______ of 2023 @ Diary No(S). 4178/2019][Civil Appeal No(S)._______ of 2023 @ SLP (C) No. 24740/2019][Civil Appeal No(S)._______ of 2023
C.I.T., Delhi Vs. Bharti Hexacom Ltd… Read More »
• Order 16, Rule 1 CPC Summoning of witnesses not named in the list of witnesses Respondents/Plaintiffs want to prove that the transaction in question is that of sale It is the case of the Respondents/Plaintiffs that the developers of the building (two additional witnesses sought to be examined) are confirming parties to the Agreement
Dinesh vs Vinod WP 11185/22 25/01/23 [ SANDEEP JJ ] [ BOMBAY HIGH COURT ].. Read More »
State of Rajasthan Vs. Gautam S/o. Mohanlal [Criminal Appeal No. 3168 of 2023 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11331 of 2019] Abhay S. Oka, J. 1. Leave granted. Factual Aspects 2. This is a case which shocks the conscience of the Court. The only issue in this case is regarding the enhancement of the sentence imposed
