admin_nupur

What is Expert Evidence as per S 39 of BSA?Expert evidence refers to testimony provided by a person who possesses specialized knowledge, skills, or experience in a particular field relevant to a legal case. This expertise enables them to provide opinions that are beyond the understanding of the average person and assists the court in […]

किसी व्यक्ति को पर्याप्त मुआवजा दिए बिना उसकी अपनी संपत्ति से वंचित नहीं किया जा सकता: सुप्रीम कोर्ट सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने कहा कि किसी व्यक्ति को कानून के अनुसार पर्याप्त मुआवजा दिए बिना उसकी संपत्ति से वंचित नहीं किया जा सकता। न्यायालय ने कर्नाटक उच्च न्यायालय की खंडपीठ के उस निर्णय के विरुद्ध प्रस्तुत सिविल

Landmark Judgements.. 📌 1. Mohammed Ahmed v. Shah Bano, 1985 📌 2. Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2017 📌 3. Danial Latifi and another v. Union of India, 2001 📌 4. Shamim Ara v. State of U.P, 2002 📌 5. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, 1995SC observed that the practice of polygamy could

Muslim LawKhula explained. Khula is a form of divorce demanded by Muslim wife. Reasoning The Bench explained that the ‘Khula’ literally translates to relinquishment in Arabic. It is a mode of dissolution of marriage when the wife does not want to continue with the marital tie and can settle the matter privately by consulting a

📢 40 Most Important Landmark Judgement. 1. Kesavananda Bharti v. State of Kerela, 1973 SCDeclared Preamble as part of Constitution and introduced Basic Structure Doctrine. 2. E.P Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1974 SCIntroduced Doctrine of Non-arbitrariness redefining equality under Article 14. 3. Selvi v. State of Karnataka, 2010 SCLie detector test needs consent,

📘 चार्जशीट दाखिल होने के बाद आरोपित अभियुक्त के पास कौन-कौन से कानूनी विकल्प उपलब्ध हैं? ⸻ जब किसी आपराधिक मामले में पुलिस जांच पूरी करके न्यायालय में (आरोप पत्र ) चार्जशीट दाखिल कर देती है, तो आरोपित अभियुक्त 👉 या तो वह उस जांच को चुनौती दे,👉 या अदालत में खुद को आरोपमुक्त करने

📑 10 Landmark Cases on Muslim Law 📌 1. Mohammed Ahmed v. Shah Bano, 1985 📌 2. Shayara Bano v. Union of India, 2017 📌 3. Danial Latifi and another v. Union of India, 2001 📌 4. Shamim Ara v. State of U.P, 2002 📌 5. Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, 1995SC observed that

Whether person suffering from mental disease is exempted from criminal liability?Next question which needs consideration is as to on whom the onus lies to prove unsoundness of mind. In law, the presumption is that every person is sane to the extent that he knows the natural consequences of his act. The burden of proof in

📘 “Further Investigation (अग्रिम विवेचना) क्या है और यह कब संभव है? 🔍 परिचय: बहुत से पाठकों के द्वारा प्रश्न पूछा गया है कि जब पुलिस एक आपराधिक मामले की जाँच पूरी कर लेती है और चार्जशीट (Charge Sheet) या अंतिम रिपोर्ट (Final Report) न्यायालय में दाखिल कर देती है, अगर पुलिस के द्वारा सही

 Chief Justice Nagu Flags Dangerous Trend Of Filing Vakalatnamas To Shift Cases From Particular Benches Saurabh MalikTribune News ServiceChandigarh, Updated At : 02:26 PM Jul 03, 2025 IST Expressing serious concern over alleged tactics to secure favourable Benches, Punjab and Haryana High Court Chief Justice Sheel Nagu on Thursday termed the emerging “trend” of advocates filing powers