Legal update 2024

-

 Supreme Court:

  • One Nation, One Election: BCI Chairman suggests Constitutional changes and political funding reforms to implement this ambitious proposal.
  • Custodial Deaths: The Supreme Court stays Meghalaya High Court's order mandating ₹10-15 lakh compensation for custodial deaths, raising concerns about accountability.
  • Tulsidas Controversy: The Court issues notice in Samajwadi Party leader's plea against criminal proceedings over his remarks on Ramcharitmanas, highlighting freedom of speech concerns.
  • Professional Tax Exemptions: Lawyers rejoice! The Court confirms that professional activities of lawyers are not taxable under the commercial establishment category.

High Courts:

  • Bombay HC: Government remains undecided on renewing Turf Club lease or creating a theme park at Mahalaxmi Racecourse, leaving the fate of the iconic venue uncertain.
  • Delhi HC: High Court refuses to suspend the sentence of Kuldeep Singh Sengar's brother in the Unnao rape case, sparking outrage and calls for justice.
  • Kerala HC: Negotiable Instruments Act takes center stage in the 2023 Kerala High Court Digest, highlighting the importance of commercial transactions.
  • AP HC: High Court grants relief to a staff nurse, highlighting the need for fair disciplinary procedures and timely action.

Other Legal News:

  • Archaeological Survey of India's report on the Gyanvapi Mosque survey to be made public, potentially impacting the ongoing religious dispute.
  • Bombay Bar Association amends its bylaws to reserve 25% seats for women in its Standing Committee, promoting gender equality in the legal profession.
  • Law Commission of India releases a consultation paper on regulating cryptocurrencies, signaling potential future legal frameworks.

Stay tuned for further updates!

Remember, this is just a glimpse into the vast legal landscape. For in-depth analysis and specific legal advice, always consult with a qualified professional.

#LegalUpdates #IndiaLaw #StayInformed #JusticeMatters

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors on 25 March, 2008 Judgment Detailed Summary

-
Image
Case Overview: Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: R. V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 2001 Parties: Petitioner: Anathula Sudhakar (Defendant in the original suit) Respondent: P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) represented by legal representatives Background: The suit was originally filed by Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy, who claimed ownership of two sites (110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards) in Matwada, Warangal town. They alleged that the defendant interfered with their possession when they began construction on the sites in 1978, leading them to file a suit for a permanent injunction. The defendant, Anathula Sudhakar, claimed that he had purchased the entire suit property (300 sq. yards) from K.V. Damodar Rao (brother of the plaintiffs' vendor, Rukminibai) under a registered sale deed in 1977 and that the property was mutated in his name in municipal records. Trial Court and Lower Courts: Trial Court: The suit was decreed in favor of...
Read more

Before Deciding on Interim, Ensure that there is atleast a preliminary satisfaction regarding the Suit Maintainbility: HSC

-
Image
Summary of Judgment: Asma Lateef & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. Citation: 2024 INSC 36 Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013 Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar Legal Issues: Whether the order dated 5th August 1991, decreeing the suit against Samiullah under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently is incapable of execution. Whether the objections under Section 47 of the CPC by the subsequent purchasers were maintainable. Background: The appellants claimed that their great-grandmother orally gifted them a certain property on 16th August 1988, which was later recorded in a memorandum before the tehsildar. The appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Asad Ullah Kazmi (defendant no. 1), his son Samiullah (defendant no. 2), and a caretaker (defendant no. 3), restraining them from interfering with their possession of...
Read more