Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka: Criminal Appeal No. 425 of 2014…
Supreme Court acquits trio in policeman’s murder, citing flawed evidence chain. The Supreme Court acquitted the accused because the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence. Key elements like motive, extra-judicial confessions, and recovery of weapons were deemed unreliable, and the presence of the deceased’s body at the accused’s house alone was
Nagamma @ Nagarathna & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka: Criminal Appeal No. 425 of 2014… Read More »
M. Rajendran & Ors. v/s M/S KPK Oils and Proteins India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 12174-12175 of 2025…
Supreme Court rules borrowers lose right to redeem property once auction notice is published. The Supreme Court held that a borrower’s right to redeem a mortgaged property under the SARFAESI Act ends on the date the auction notice is published, not when the sale is completed. The Court clarified that the 2016 amendment to Section
Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari and Ors.: Civil Appeal Nos. 2564 and 2589 of 1966…
Supreme Court: The court may award maintenance to wife up to 25% of husband’s income and to child 15% of husband’s incomeA sum of Rs. 250/- per month for the maintenance of the wife of a person occupying the position of the appellant cannot be said to err on the liberal side. The High Court
Kulbhushan Kumar Vs. Raj Kumari and Ors.: Civil Appeal Nos. 2564 and 2589 of 1966… Read More »
Murari v/s State OF Bihar CRLDB 538/08 18/09/25…
ð️PATNA HIGH COURT BIBEK CHAUDHURI J Section 302 IPC and Arms Act Section 27 Conviction based on defective investigation Prosecution’s failure to seize weapon of offence, obtain ballistic expert’s opinion, and examine critical evidence like blood-stained earth, wearing apparel, and pellets recovered from the deceased’s body – Held, such lapses amount to no investigation, and
Murari v/s State OF Bihar CRLDB 538/08 18/09/25… Read More »
KAVERI v/s MAHDOOM SLPCRL 11184/24 19/09/25…
ð️ SUPREME COURT OF INDIA N.V. ANJARIA, J. NI ACT Sections 138, 141, 142, Proviso (b) Dishonour of Cheque Demand Notice Validity Requirement of notice to demand the “said amount of money’ “Said amount of money’ refers to the cheque amount itself — Demand for an amount different from the cheque amount invalidates the notice
KAVERI v/s MAHDOOM SLPCRL 11184/24 19/09/25… Read More »
Case Law for Preamble with One Line Explanation…
✅ Case Law for Preamble with One Line Explanation ◾ 1. Re: Berubari Union 1960 – SC held Preamble is not a part of the Constitution. ◾ 2. Golaknath v. State of Punjab 1967 – Discussed importance of Fundamental Rights, hinted at Preamble’s guiding role. ◾ 3. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala 1973 –
Case Law for Preamble with One Line Explanation… Read More »
Tarun vs Anu CR 5587/22 15/09/25…
ð️ PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT HEADLINES ENGLISH AND HINDI VIKAS BAHL, J Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, Eviction petition – Relationship of landlord and tenant – Held, in an eviction petition, the burden to prove the relationship of landlord and tenant lies upon the petitioner filing the eviction petition – Framing the
Tarun vs Anu CR 5587/22 15/09/25… Read More »
Legal Update: विधिक विश्लेषण : उपभोक्ताओं की सहमति के बिना स्मार्ट प्रीपेड मीटर लगाना…
विधिक विश्लेषण : उपभोक्ताओं की सहमति के बिना स्मार्ट प्रीपेड मीटर लगाना विद्युत वितरण निगमों द्वारा उपभोक्ताओं की सहमति के बिना स्मार्ट प्रीपेड मीटर लगाए जाने की प्रक्रिया विवाद का विषय बन चुकी है। राज्य विद्युत उपभोक्ता परिषद और विद्युत कर्मचारी संघर्ष समिति ने इसे न केवल असांविधानिक बल्कि विद्युत अधिनियम, 2003 के प्रावधानों का
Legal Update: विधिक विश्लेषण : उपभोक्ताओं की सहमति के बिना स्मार्ट प्रीपेड मीटर लगाना… Read More »
0ANKIT v/s NIKITA TA 1039/25 26/08/25…
ð️ PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT ARCHANA PURI, J Section 24 CPC Transfer applications – Three civil suits filed at the instance of respondent arising out of matrimonial dispute – Applicant seeking transfer from Ludhiana to Faridabad – Held, Courts generally lean towards convenience of wife in matrimonial disputes but same is not a thumb rule
0ANKIT v/s NIKITA TA 1039/25 26/08/25… Read More »
