The Supreme Court made a preliminary observation last week and held that the central vaccine policy that does not provide free vaccination for the 18-44 age group is arbitrary and unreasonable. On Monday, June 7, 2021, Prime Minister Modi announced that free jabs will be provided to everyone above 18 years of age. This isRead More
Kerala High court on 3rd June 2021, held that false allegation of impotency or erectile dysfunction against a spouse is considered to be “mental cruelty”. This judgment was made in the divorce case of a doctor- couple.As per the Hindu marriage act, cruelty means that the other party has, after the solemnization of the marriage,Read More
On Monday Justice Madras HC Justice Anand Venkatesh expressed his thoughts on homosexual relationships. When the judge was ruling on a petition filed by two lesbian girls asking for protection from their parents who were against their homosexual relationship. Justice Anand Venkatesh shared his thoughts on LGBT Community while giving direction in a petition filedRead More
SC will continue to proceed with the hearings concerning children who have lost one or both parents, who have been abandoned or orphaned due to COVID-19. On 28th May, The bench of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Aniruddha Bose had directed all the local authorities of districts to upload the information of children whoRead More
A plea has been filed before the Supreme Court seeking equality in the treatment of authorized journalists and unauthorized journalists for the needs of compensation and other benefits granted by the Central and state governments amid the COVID-19 pandemic. A few state governments have declared journalists as frontline workers; however, the Central government has stillRead More
With the consent of Sri Y Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri N Harinath, learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri V.Surender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 5, this writ petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission. Petitioner’s Contention The petitioner contended thatRead More
A metropolis Court on Tues adjourned hearing within the preceding bail applications filed by Shantanu Muluk and Bombay based mostly attorney, Nikita Jacob in manoeuver with the urban center Police FIR over the ‘toolkit’ created for organizing farmers protests. However, the Court went ahead to increase their interim protections.Additional Sessions choose Dharmender amphibian genus grantedRead More
On Friday, Justice D. Y. Chandrachud said, “I’m tired of seeing cut-and paste orders from High Courts.”For an order to be confirmed, there must be independent reasons given! There must be an independent mental application! The judge continued, “Cutting, copying, and pasting from the Tribunal’s judgement just adds to the number of pages but does not address the main problem of appeal!” The UPSC’s SLP was being considered by the bench, which also included Justice M. R. Shah, in light of an Orissa High Court decision upholding the order of the CAT, Cuttack Bench on the question of whether the respondent could be refused a position in the IAS due to a disciplinary penalty levied in 2011.The UPSC Rules under Article 320, not the DoPT guidelines, will hold sway in this case, and Justices Chandrachud and Shah set aside the HC order, restoring the plea before the HC. “The High Court should not apply its mind independently! Only the order of the Tribunal has been copied! “, Justice Chandrachud remarked.By reconvening the Selection Committee meeting, the tribunal ordered the appellant-UPSC to reconsider the case of the respondent for promotion to the IAS.” If the respondent was considered worthy by the Review Selection Committee, the respondent was to receive consequential benefits. The High Court, after being moved from the tribunal’s order, extracted the tribunal’s judgement and observed that “the tribunal has elaborately discussed the statute” and that “there is no jurisdictional error and no intervention is warranted,” the supreme court noted in its order.The petitioner-UPSC had primarily argued before the HC that the Tribunal had exceeded its authority by granting relief to the claimant, and that it had miserably refused to recognise that the induction is not a promotion. The DOPT guidelines are not applicable in this case; they are only applicable in cases of promotion. It was also said that the Tribunal had made a significant mistake by remanding the case back for reconsideration. It was argued that the applicant has no right to be elevated to I.A.S., and that he only has a right to be considered for I.A.S. induction. The petitioner’s attorney argued that the applicant has no right to be considered for induction into I.A. because of his misbehaviour. By Aishwarya Daftari
The Supreme Court in one of its judgments held that the payments made by resident Indian end-users or distributors on import of ‘shrink-wrapped’ software cannot be considered as a royalty payment, leading to no withholding of tax obligations in India against such payments. At several levels of judicial appeals, it has been held that theRead More
Karnataka High Court, on 31st July 2019 quoted that, It is the obligation of the municipal corporation to maintain roads’ In a landmark verdict court gave a tremendous relief to the citizens suffering from the bad roads in India’s IT Capital Bengaluru as well as the other parts of the State, the Karnataka High courtRead More
Lexpeeps Pvt Ltd provides tailored legal and business solutions, empowering businesses, startups, and professionals with innovative, comprehensive support and cutting-edge services for over half a decade.
© Copyright 2024 Lexpeeps All Rights Reserved | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy