Category: Constitution

Case transferred from regular court – State Government is interested in taking action against land grabbers, it can bring an appropriate legislation with a clear definition of “land grabber” and “land grabbing” or better legislations with a clear definition of “land grabbing”, “land grabber”, and “land grabbing cases” – The present order shall not prevent the State Government from enacting such legislation – Appeal dismissed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. R. THAMARAISELVAM ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.…

Customs Act, 1962 – Sections 125 and 127B – Whether a settlement remedy under Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, would be available for the seized goods, which are specified under Section 123 of the Act? – Divergent view regarding the issue – Matter to be placed before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH YAMAL MANOJBHAI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Writ Petition…

IMPORTANT — Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 145(5) – Majority of Judges -It is settled that the majority decision of a Bench of larger strength would prevail over the decision of a Bench of lesser strength, irrespective of the number of Judges constituting the majority.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S TRIMURTHI FRAGRANCES (P) LTD. THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR AGRAWAL — Appellant Vs. GOVT.OF N.C.T OF DELHI THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY (FINANCE)…

Mercy Petition – Supreme Court has rejected the request to reduce Balwant Singh Rajoana’s death sentence, but has permitted the central government to determine when to consider the mercy petition if needed — however, directed that the competent authority, in due course of time, would again as and when it is deemed necessary, may deal with the Mercy Petition, and take a further decision.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH BALWANT SINGH — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, Vikram Nath and Sanjay Karol, JJ. )…

IMPORTANT – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 142(1) – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – In exercise of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India, has the discretion to dissolve the marriage on the ground of its irretrievable breakdown

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CONSTITUTION BENCH SHILPA SAILESH — Appellant Vs. VARUN SREENIVASAN — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Sanjiv Khanna, Abhay S. Oka, Vikram Nath and J.K.…

Reservation – Domicile quota in B.Ed colleges – reservation in favour of residents is permissible, yet reservation to the extent of 75% of the total seats makes it a wholesale reservation to be unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH VEENA VADINI TEACHERS TRAINING INSTITUTE (RUN BY VEENA VADINI SAMAJ KALYAN VIKASH SAMITI) — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent…

SCOI to constitute a three-judge bench to hear Central government’s application seeking the recall of a top court verdict wherein it had ruled in Ritu Chhabaria v. Union of India that an accused will be entitled to default bail if an incomplete charge sheet is filed by the investigating agency .

SCOI to constitute a three-judge bench to hear Central government’s application seeking the recall of a top court verdict wherein it had ruled that an accused will be entitled to…

Auction – Bank guarantee – procedure and guidelines laid down by the ASC and that being a part of the auction notice, the appellant was under obligation to comply with and despite opportunity the appellant has failed to comply with both the twin conditions – High Court rightly set aside the auction – Appeal dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJIV KUMAR JINDAL AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BCI STAFF COLONY RESIDENTIAL WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Ajay Rastogi and…

Right of default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is not merely a statutory right, but a fundamental right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India – During the pendency of the investigation, supplementary chargesheets were filed by the Investigation Agency just before the expiry of 60 days – Interim order of bail is upheld.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RITU CHHABARIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and C. T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Writ…

You missed

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.