Ambika Prasad @ Ambika Prasad Pandey v/s Shyam Bihari And 4 Others…

Will to be cancelled if surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Bharpur Singh and Others Vs. Shamsher Singh;AIR 2009 SC 1766, has held that a will must be proved having regard to the provisions contained in clause (c) of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and […]

Ambika Prasad @ Ambika Prasad Pandey v/s Shyam Bihari And 4 Others… Read More »

Legal Update: अधिवक्ता बनाम दरोगा प्रकरण…

अधिवक्ता बनाम दरोगा प्रकरण: एडीसीपी समेत कई पुलिसकर्मीयो के खिलाफ़ पड़ी याचिका, अगली सुनवाई कल ✨वाराणसी। वकील पुलिस विवाद थमने का नाम नहीं ले रहा है। इस मामले में शुक्रवार को मुख्य न्यायिक मजिस्ट्रेट की अदालत में एडीसीपी नीतू कात्यान, एसीपी क्राइम विदुष सक्सेना पुलिस अधिकारी नितिन तनेजा, थाना प्रभारी कैंट शिवाकांत मिश्र समेत 50

Legal Update: अधिवक्ता बनाम दरोगा प्रकरण… Read More »

Legal Update: अदालतों को वैवाहिक क्रूरता में शामिल न होने वाले व्यक्तियों के उत्पीड़न को रोकना चाहिए: दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय…

अदालतों को वैवाहिक क्रूरता में शामिल न होने वाले व्यक्तियों के उत्पीड़न को रोकना चाहिए: दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय17-09-2025 भारतीय दंड संहिता (आईपीसी) की धारा 498ए के दुरुपयोग की , जिसका मूल उद्देश्य महिलाओं को क्रूरता और दहेज उत्पीड़न से बचाना था, दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय ने हाल ही में एक फैसले में कड़ी आलोचना की है।

Legal Update: अदालतों को वैवाहिक क्रूरता में शामिल न होने वाले व्यक्तियों के उत्पीड़न को रोकना चाहिए: दिल्ली उच्च न्यायालय… Read More »

M/s Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd. V/s J.S. Vohra 2016 (2) Civil Court Cases 504 (Delhi)…

Tenant remains a tenant till sale deed is executed in his favour on the basis of agreement to sell. Until specific performance of the unregistered agreement to sell has been ordered by court of law, the tenant in the suit property shall continue to remain as a tenant. M/s Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd. Vs. J.S.

M/s Jagdambey Builders Pvt. Ltd. V/s J.S. Vohra 2016 (2) Civil Court Cases 504 (Delhi)… Read More »

THE STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS JAI SINGH AND OTHERS 16.09.2025…

The three-Judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) B.R. Gavai, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra, and Justice K.V. Viswanathan emphasised, “The doctrine of stare decisis lays importance on stability and predictability in the legal system and mandates that a view consistently upheld by courts over a long period must be followed, unless it is manifestly

THE STATE OF HARYANA VERSUS JAI SINGH AND OTHERS 16.09.2025… Read More »

Karnataka High Court. Mr.Srinivas Adhikeshavulu Dalvoi v/s M/S Anushka Constructions Pvt Ltd…

MOU if delivered possession of immovable must be registered . Otherwise it is not admissible in evidence . No benefit under section 53 A of TPAct can be claimed on the basis of unregistered deed. The agreement of sale is dated 29.11.2011 and MOU is dated 08.12.2021, which is obviously after coming into force of

Karnataka High Court. Mr.Srinivas Adhikeshavulu Dalvoi v/s M/S Anushka Constructions Pvt Ltd… Read More »

Ankit Raj v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others: CRL.M.C. 3061/2025 & CRL.M.A. 13572/2025…

CRL.M.C. 3061/2025 & CRL.M.A. 13572/2025Ankit Raj v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others A Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma remarked, “The law governing offence of rape is intended to protect the bodily integrity and autonomy of women and to punish those who exploit them by force or by deception which vitiates free

Ankit Raj v. State of NCT of Delhi and Others: CRL.M.C. 3061/2025 & CRL.M.A. 13572/2025… Read More »

Preet v/s Santro FAO 1096/1998 15/09/25…

🏛️ PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT HEADLINES ENGLISH AND HINDI Motor Vehicles Act, Rash and negligent driving – Determination of liability – Held, credible and consistent eyewitness testimony attributing negligence to the motorcyclist, which remained unrebutted, should be given substantial weight – FIR cannot automatically override such testimony – Tribunal’s finding holding scooter driver/owner liable reversed,

Preet v/s Santro FAO 1096/1998 15/09/25… Read More »

Dastagirsab v/s Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) by LRs. & Ors.

Supreme Court upholds Karta’s sale of HUF property for daughter’s marriage as legal necessity. The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s decision, holding that the sale of joint family property by the Karta was for legal necessity (marriage expenses of the daughter) and the purchaser was bona fide. The High Court erred in ignoring evidence

Dastagirsab v/s Sharanappa @ Shivasharanappa Police Patil (D) by LRs. & Ors. Read More »