Judgement Archives - Legal Research And Analysis

The Ayodhya verdict does not address the legality of the Places of Worship Act: Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, to the Supreme Court

October 12, 2022October 12, 2022 Sabina Nafees Nafees

On Wednesday, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the Supreme Court that the top court’s 2019 decision in the Ayodhya case did not address the constitutionality of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991. (Act).

Mehta made the comment in answer to a question raised by a panel comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) UU Lalit and Justices S Ravindra Bhat and Ajay Rastogi during the hearing of petitions challenging the Act.

Covering the Supreme Court of India, current affairs, Judgement, Legal Updates, LRA Explains

Ayodhya Title Dispute:- M Siddiq v Mahant Suresh Das, 9th Nov 2019

July 13, 2022July 13, 2022 Sabina Nafees Nafees

The Ayodhya dispute which is also known as ‘Ram Janmabhoomi Vivad’ was one of the most famous disputes in the socio-religious history of India. The dispute was related to the plot of land in the district Ayodhya, U.P, which is regarded as the birthplace of Bhagwan Ram.

Hindus believe that in the sixteenth century the Babur demolished the temple situated at the birthplace of Ram and built a Mosque which is known as Babri Masjid.

Civil, Judgement, legal, LRA Explains, Property Law

Defendants Who Have Not Filed Written Statements Can Be Permitted To Cross Examine Witnesses After Ex Parte Decree Is Set Aside: The Supreme Court.

July 12, 2022July 12, 2022 legalresearchanalyst2020

The Supreme Court observed that by overturning the exparte decree, the defendants can be allowed to be involved in the suit proceedings and cross-examine witnesses.

The defendants, in this case, were set ex parte by the Trial Court. The Trial Court also dismissed their application under Order IX Rule 13.

Civil, Covering the Supreme Court of India, Judgement, LRA Explains

Landmark Judgement:-Mandal Case
Indra Sawhney & Others v. Union of India(PIL SC 1992)

July 7, 2022July 7, 2022 PRANAV

The constitution recognized social and educational backwardness, but not economic backwardness. The court upheld separate reservations for OBC in central government jobs but excluded these to the “creamy layer” (the forward section of a backward class, above a certain income).[4][unreliable source? At no point should the reservation exceed 50%.

The genesis of the debate was in 1980, when the Second Backward Classes Committee, headed by BP Mandal, submitted its report. The report recommended 27 percent reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) and 22.5 percent for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes.

Judgement, legal

The Doctrine of Estoppel: “Allegan Contraria non est Audiendus”

July 1, 2022July 1, 2022 PRANAV

The doctrine of estoppel is based upon the grounds of public policy, fair dealing, good faith, and justice, and its purpose is to forbid one to speak against his own act, representations, or commitments to the injury of one to whom they were directed and who reasonably relied thereon upon. Said doctrine springs from equitable principles and the equities of the case.

Article, Civil, Common law, Evidence Act

The mere heinous nature of crime cannot be the deciding factor for awarding a death sentence, Supreme court.

February 12, 2022April 6, 2022 Sabina Nafees Nafees

The Supreme Court has observed that mere heinous nature of the offense cannot be the deciding factor for awarding the death penalty. The court while reducing the death sentence awarded to a man accused of rape and murder of a seven-year-old girl said that an equally relevant aspect relating to the mitigating factors must also be considered before arriving at this conclusion. That the option of any punishment other than the death penalty has been exhausted

Judgement

Mr. Arani Mukhopadhy v. Employee Provident Fund & Ors.

August 2, 2020July 21, 2021 legalresearchanalyst2020

W.P. No. 15262(W) of 2018 Calcutta High Court Date 6th September 2019, The Hon’ble Justice Shekhar B. Saraf Jurisdiction Application under Article 226 of Constitution for Non payment of Provident Fund and incorrect date of resignation on Pension Payment Order(PPO) Book maintained by Respondent Company. Facts of the case On 5th December 1995 show cause…

Civil, Judgement, legal