Considering beneficial nature of the legislation, maintenance proceedings under S.18 & S.20 of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 are deemed to be instituted via 'Petition' or 'Application' and not via 'suit'
#5 Aditya Kansagra v. Perry [DHC in MAT. APP. (F.C.) 115/2020]
Only 'Final' orders are appealable under Section 21 (1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, therefore, the remedy against an order framing charges (not being a final order) is S.482 petition rather than an Appeal.
#4 Shahid Yousuf v. NIA [DHC, Crl. A. 199 of 2021]
Default bail under Section 167(2) CrPC can be granted when the investigating agency files a preliminary or incomplete chargesheet.
#3 Sanjay Kumar Pundeer v. NCT of Delhi [DHC_Bail App. No. 2698/2023]
Significant to have concise but specific averments while written submissions / Appeal drafting.
Lack of observations in Court Order regarding a specific contention, raises a prima facie presumption that the ground was not pressed.
#2 Amanullah v. State of U.P., (1973) 2 SCC 81
Accused refraining from making self-incriminating statements cannot be considered as 'non-cooperation' during investigation.
Bijender v. State of Haryana [SLP. Crl. 1079/2024]
After gleaning through various provisions and regulations, similar resolution passed by Kotdwar Bar Association in 2019 was declared null and void, cost imposed while indicating deterrent via criminal contempt
https://t.co/kIOTIjZ0a9
JUST IN | In the Ram Mandir donation embezzlement case, Ayodhya Bar Association held an emergency meeting on Monday. Association president Kalika Prasad Mishra said that no lawyer will represent the accused in the case and if anyone does, a fine of Rs 5 lakh will be imposed on them.
"No lawyer will represent the accused in the case and if anyone does, a fine of Rs 5 lakh will be imposed on them,” he said.
During the meeting, several advocates said that outgoing Ram Temple Trust General Secretary Champat Rai, trustee Anil Mishra and Gopal Rai must leave Ayodhya. They warned that if they do not leave within three days, the entire city will be blocked and no one will be allowed to enter Ayodhya.
- @MayankK16stm reports
This very smart client forgot to apprise the executive magistrate, in an 145 crpc proceedings, that a civil suit is already pending regarding the same property. Now suddenly, it’s the my job to leave every thing, file a revision and urgently get a stay on the adverse order !
was going through the three member committee report on the allegations against J. Varma; all things aside, atleast @barandbench could have redacted personal phone numbers referred in the report while maintaining their first mover advantage !
I have a few thoughts/observations on the current state of the Censor Board in India. Since the portal where they share cuts is down due to "maintenance" (which I doubt), thought now is a good time to share them.
Under 482 CrPC proceedings, Courts are now granting such ex-parte stays from 'relying' on well-reasoned judgements passed after recording meticulous arguments. Same level of urgency and leniency should be shown to the accused persons approaching for stay from arrest.
@_shrayanshsingh Bank accounts should not be seen to have territorial restrictions. Accounts can be accessed from anywhere. if a single branch (not the actual holder branch) lies within the jurisdiction of the executing court, freeze orders can be issued. Delhi courts have been allowing this.