Allahabad HC: High Court Can Nullify An Order Of Conviction Even After The Revisional Stage
The case was of Rishi Mohan Srivastava V. State of UP & Anr. The decision was given by Justice Chandra Dhari Singh. The Court held that High Courts can nullify an order of conviction in a criminal revision of a cheque bouncing case. The conviction and sentence was annulled in this case. It was held that the specific powers under Section 482 could only be exercised when no other remedy was available to the litigant.
What do you think about this case?
SC Determines Whether A Deed Is Of Absolute Transfer Or Mortgage By Conditional Stage
The case was of Bhimrao Ramchandra Khalate (Deceased) vs. Nana dinkar Yadav (Tanpura). The decision was given by Justice Hemnt Gupta and Justice A S Bopanna. In this case, it was held that the intention of parties needs to be considered in deciding whether a document is one of absolute sale or mortgage by conditional sale. Mortagge by conditional sale is defined in Section 58 of the Transfer of Property Act.
What do you think about this case?
Allahabad HC: Mere Creation Of Courts Not Sufficient
This case was a PIL. A 7 judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court expressed its dissatisfaction with the State government’s actions regarding the compliance with directions issued by it in 2019 on availability of court infrastructure and other amenities. The Bench was led by Acting Chief Justice Munishwar Nath Bhandari, who was hearing a suo motu PIL registered way back in 2015.
What do you think about this case?
Allahabad High Court Denies Bail To Gang Rape Accused
The case was of Shivsagar Yadav V. State of UP. In this case, the bail plea of the accused was rejected. The Court also noted that her FSL examination indicated that she was the subject of brutal and merciless sexual assault. The case has been referred to as the 2019 Jhungi Gang Rape case and the decision was given by Justice Rahul Chaturvedi.
What do you think about this case?
Karnataka HC Stays Order Declaring Rule 31A(3) Of CGST Rules, 2017 As Ultra Vires
The case was of Union of India and Bangalore Turf Club Limited. The decision was given by the Division Bench of Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum. In this case, Additional Advocate General Dhyan Chinnappa appeared for the State and Advocate Vikram Huilgol appeared for the Union of India.Thr order declaring Rule 31A(3) of CGST Rules has been stayed so far.
What do you think about this case?
CJI N V Ramana: Laws Lack Clarity Due To Lack Of Parliamentary Debates
The Chief Justice of India NV Ramana today expressed his unhappiness over the lack of debates in Parliament while laws are being enacted these days. He has lamented the lack of wide and constructive debates in the Parliament and called it a sorry state of affairs. The CJI was speaking at the event organized by the Supreme Court Bar Association to celebrate 75th Independence Day.
What do you think about this case?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
