With the General Elections 2024 having commenced on 19-04-2024, the nation is now geared up to see the results of the Elections that will be declared on 04-06-2024. This 2024 Elections to elect members of the Lok Sabha / House of People is said to be the largest-ever election in the Indian history as it will last for about 44 days. The National Democratic Alliance (NDA) led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), that formed the Union Government, with Shri. Narendra Modi as the Prime Minister of India (PM) since 2014, has done a lot in the last 10 years and definitely helped India to change its i ..read more

A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgment dated 25-04-2024 in the matter of Mohd. Ahsan vs. the State of Haryana, Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.5460/2024 and observed that the incident leading to the death of the Deceased was a result of a sudden fight that arose due to a heated argument between the Appellant and the Deceased, and not due to any premeditation. Hence, the Appellant would be liable to be punished for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. FACTS: i) That the Appeal mentio ..read more

A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice B. R Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta passed a Judgment dated 22-04-2024 in the matter of Kariman vs. The State of Chhattisgarh Criminal Appeal No. 2193 / 2024 and observed that the Accused can only be held responsible for knowing that the injury inflicted by him was likely to cause death. Therefore, there is no criminal intent to cause death or cause bodily harm that was likely to cause death. As a result, the Accused’s action falls under the category of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. FACTS: i) That the aforesaid Appeal f ..read more

A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Aravind Kumar passed a judgement in Jyoti Devi v. Suket Hospital & Ors. Special Leave Petition (C) No.242 of 2016 wherein the Supreme Court held that Courts should keep facts in mind while determining the compensation. Facts Jyoti Devi (Claimant/Appellant) was admitted to Suket Hospital at Himachal Pradesh in 2005 for having an appendicitis removal surgery. Post-surgery, the Claimant was still suffering from pains and was admitted again in the hospital and later discharged and was given assurances that she w ..read more

In a recent matter that was decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on 05-02-2024 titled as Union Of India and Ors. vs. M/s. B.T. Patil and Sons Belgaum (Construction) Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No.7238 of 2009, the Supreme Court allowed the Respondent, a Class-I contractor, interest for delayed payment by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). This case is important as invariably when we fight litigations against the Government Departments, there is a complete apathy on the part of these bodies when it comes to paying refunds or incentives or compensation for the delay caused by the ..read more

Recently, in the matter of Rehan Ahmed (D) Thr. LRs Vs. Akhtar Un Nisa (D) Thr. LRs, Civil Appeal No. 5218 / 2024 arising out of SLP (Civil) No.18772 of 2014, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed a Judgment dated 22-04-2024 and observed that a decree that is passed based on a duly verified compromise agreement, cannot be challenged. Facts i) In the present case, an Agreement to Sell dated 04-10-1967 was executed in respect of a property being Municipal No. 52- 57, Maniharon Ka Rasta, Jaipur (Suit Property) bet ..read more

In a recent case of Mukhtar Zaidi Vs The State of Uttar Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 2134 of 2024 arising from SLP (CRL) No. 9122 of 2021, a two Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed a Judgment dated 18-04-2024 and observed that (a) in the event the Ld. Magistrate’s Court disagrees with the conclusions arrived at by the investigating officer in his police report and (b) decides to treat the protest petition filed by the complainant in protest of such I.O.’s conclusions, as a private complaint under Section 200 of the ..read more

A two Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Viswanathan passed a judgement in The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Kamal Agarwal & Ors. SLP(Crl.) Nos.8663-8665 of 2023 and Chandra Mohan Badaya v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh & Ors.  SLP(Crl.) No. 7301 OF 2022 wherein the Apex Court held that High Courts must contemplate the true nature of the case and then exercise their jurisdiction. Facts A FIR bearing no.227 of 2017 was lodged by Mr. Anil Agarwal on behalf of Mr. Okep Tayeng who was the proprietor of M/s Shiv Bhandar and subsequently a F ..read more

A single Judge Bench of Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna passed an Order in Gaurav Bhatia v. Naveen Kumar and Ors. CS(OS) 274/2024 dated 16.04.2024, wherein the Hon’ble Court passed an interim injunction in favour of the Plaintiff to stop propagation of false news and posts made against the Plaintiff by the Defendants on their platforms. Facts Plaintiff is a Senior Advocate who has previously served as Honorary Secretary of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) and has also served as National Spokesperson for the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) wherein he was responsib ..read more

A two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah passed a Judgment dated 15-04-2024 in the matter of M/s Ireo Grace Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Sanjay Gopinath, Interlocutory Application (I.A.) Nos. 81886/2024 & 84009/2024 in Civil Appeal No. 2764-2771/2022 and observed that despite a Court Order specifically directing that no coercive steps should be taken against the directors of the Appellant-Company, the Hon’ble National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC) went ahead and issued Non-Bailable Warrants against them. Hence, as NC ..read more