Keeping Pace with Legal Change
The Supreme Court held that threatening harm to extort money constitutes an offence under Section 387 IPC, even without actual delivery. Justice Sanjay Karol underscored limited scope of High Court’s quashing powers under Section 482 CrPC, and restored trial proceedings.
The Supreme Court sharply reprimanded the Haryana Chief Secretary for inaction over an unauthorized road through reserved forest land near Nuh. The bench cited bureaucratic collusion with forest mafias and ordered disciplinary action, warning of contempt remedies for further delays.
Following a peaceful resolution between the two parties, the First Information Report (FIR) that had been filed against a man who was accused of gazing at a lady on a flight was dismissed by the Delhi High Court. The court came to the conclusion that pursuing the lawsuit would be pointless and emphasized the significance of resolving disagreements of this kind by mutual agreement wherever possible.
An FIR that had been filed against a man who was accused of gazing at a woman while they were both on a flight was dismissed by the Delhi High Court after the two parties reached a mutually agreeable settlement. The judge decided that prolonging the proceedings would not achieve any beneficial outcome and could be seen as an abuse of process.
Introduction The Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Union of India v. Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd. on June 5,…
Kerala High Court affirmed a widow’s right to reside in her matrimonial home under Section 17 of the DV Act, clarifying that a widow’s domestic relationship with in-laws endures beyond her husband’s death and property ownership cannot nullify this protection.
This article talks about the Supreme Court’s decision to reject the acquittal of a government official accused of bribery. The court reinstated the trial court’s conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, concentrating on the legal principles and evidence issues at hand.
On April 16, 2025, the Supreme Court made a very important decision that cleared K. Shikha Barman of all charges. The court found that there were serious mistakes in the way the case was handled and that the wrong person had been identified under the NDPS Act. The Court stressed that the prosecution did not show the defendant’s identity beyond a reasonable doubt.
This article talks about the Supreme Court’s decision in Nafees Ahmad v. Soinuddin, which makes the meaning of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC clearer. The Court said that significant conformity, not absolute adherence, is enough for crafting an appellate judgment.
The Supreme Court found in favor of the victim’s family in a road accident claim, turning down the insurance company’s argument that the victim was partly to blame. The Court agreed with the High Court’s judgment to hold the truck driver and insurance company fully responsible.
