Live Law

2 days ago | livelaw.in | Sparsh Upadhyay

Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/ACJM Alok Verma observed that since the statements in question were made in the Legislative Council by the UP CM, they are protected under Article 194 of the Constitution of India and are not liable to be questioned in court.

3 days ago | livelaw.in | Sparsh Upadhyay

The Allahabad High Court recently reprimanded the Bank of Baroda for what it termed an "arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious" action in returning an auctioned property to the defaulting borrower (the original borrower), despite having completed the auction process and accepted the earnest money from the successful bidder (the auction purchaser).

3 days ago | livelaw.in | Sparsh Upadhyay

In a strongly worded order, the Court also criticised the laxity of law enforcement agencies in conducting proper age verification as required by Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. This provision mandates that the age of a person claiming to be a juvenile must primarily be determined on the basis of documentary evidence, and if the same isn't feasible, to conduct ossification or other medical age determination tests.

4 days ago | livelaw.in | Sparsh Upadhyay

A bench of Justice Attau Rehman Masoodi and Justice Ajai Kumar Srivastava-I is presently dealing with a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by a BJP Member from Karnataka (S. Vignesh Shishir), seeking a CBI probe into Gandhi's alleged British Citizenship. During the course of the hearing today, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Surya Bhan Pandey, sought further time to decide on Gandhi's Citizenship. To which, the division posted the matter for hearing next on May 5.

5 days ago | livelaw.in | Sparsh Upadhyay

A bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh observed that a prima facie case had been made out in favour of the students, two of whom were rusticated and one expelled, noting that no show-cause notice was issued to two of them prior to the issuance of the adverse orders. "The Court has considered the submission, however, what could not be disputed by the counsel for the University that there is no material on record to refute or to deny the fact that no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner.