Category: State Laws

Gokarna Mahabaleshwara Temple Case – Court direct that the ‘Overseeing Committee’ shall function under the Chairmanship of Hon’ble Justice Sri. B.N. Srikrishna, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India and manage the affairs of the temple in all respects – Ramchandrapura Math shall hand over charge of the affairs of the temple to the Assistant Commissioner who shall also act as Secretary to the ‘Overseeing Committee’.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH RAMACHNADRAPURA MATH — Appellant Vs. SRI SAMSTHANA MAHABALESHWARA DEVARU AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. A. Bobde, CJI., A.S. Bopanna and V.…

Reservation of seats in respect of OBCs – Reservation for OBCs must be proportionate in the context of nature and implications of backwardness and in any case, is permissible only to the extent it does not exceed the aggregate of 50 per cent of the total seats in the local bodies reserved for SCs/STs/OBCs taken together

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VIKAS KISHANRAO GAWALI — Appellant Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi, JJ.…

W B Premises Requisition and Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1947- To then say that the urgency provision could be invoked on account of the Single Judge’s order dated 22.06.2000, is to attempt to infer from the said order, much more than it actually said – Therefore, the Division Bench rightly held that at best this order could possibly refer to the acquisition proceedings

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PUNALUR PAPER MILLS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. WEST BENGAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman…

Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act, 2008 – Kerala Wetlands (Conservation and Management) Rules, 2010 – Rule 4 – Restrictions on activities within wetlands -It is open to the Appellant to challenge the order of the Collector dated 30.04.2019 in accordance with law –

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH THOMAS LAWRENCE — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha and Indira Banerjee,…

U P Mining Minerals (Concession) R, 1963 – Rule 40(h) – disruption of mining operations- State of UP states that they are only liable to refund (i) any security deposit; or (ii) advance royalties paid to them, for this obstructed period – the State already consented and recorded in such order .

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DHARMENDRA KUMAR SINGH — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh…

Rajasthan Pre-Emption Act, 1966 – Section 9 – Loss of right of pre-emption on transfer – A right is available once – whether to take it or leave it to a person having a right of pre-emption – If such person finds it is not worth once, it is not an open right available for all times to come to that person

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAGHUNATH (D) BY LRS. — Appellant Vs. RADHA MOHAN (D) THR. LRS. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and…

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.