The High Court of AP had dismissed the Govt Order to color all the Government building to YSRCP Colours in the State of AP here. State Government failed at Supreme Court too. Judgment is here.
The AP Govt had the following Order passed (2020PR_MS623) to obtain the very same colors to paint Government Buildings in the State of AP this time via the namesake committee to submit recommendations to exactly match the YSRCP colours to meet their party agenda item.
The High Court of AP had dismissed the Govt Order to change the medium of instruction to English in all Government run schools in the State of AP here.
The AP Govt had the following Order passed (21042020SE_MS20) to obtain the preferred Medium of Instruction in all Government schools in the State via the Parents committee resolutions to get the mandated English Medium schools for all agenda item.
The following are the Rules made under the Family Courts Act 1984, last amended in 2005.
The Family Courts Act is available here.
Disclaimer:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
I have no control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in it’s entirety, not I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.
This Ordinance was brought in by the Central Government to protect the Healthcare Service Personnel from the idiotic folks who misbehaved, assaulted and obstructed while performing their yomen duties during the pandemic COVID-19
Earlier enactment is here.
Disclaimer:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
I have no control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in it’s entirety, not I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.
Supreme Court was constrained to take a view different from the one taken by it in Bharatha Matha on Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
From Para 41,
41. In the instant case, Section 16(3) as amended, does not impose any restriction on the property right of such children except limiting it to the property of their parents. Therefore, such children will have a right to whatever becomes the property of their parents, whether self acquired or ancestral.
But thankfully, referred the matter to a larger bench in March 2011.
43. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter should be reconsidered by a larger Bench and for that purpose the records of the case be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench.
Citations: [2011 SCJ 4 4], [2011 AIOL 244], [2011 CTC 2 810], [2013 ILR 4291], [2011 SCC 11 1], [2011 MWN CIVIL 3 528], [2011 MLJ 5 392], [2011 GLH 1 757], [2011 JCR SC 2 259], [2011 CLT SC 112 469], [2011 LW 3 255], [2011 SCALE 4 189], [2011 SCR 4 675], [2011 AIC 101 73], [2011 SCSUPPL CHN 4 50], [2011 AIR SC 2447], [2011 CALLT 3 58], [2011 KCCR 2 1531], [2011 AIR SC SUPP 155], [2011 JT SC 4 90], [2011 AWC SC 3 3126], [2011 UJ 2 1342], [2011 SCC CIV 3 581], [2011 KERLT 2 176], [2011 CGLRW 2 13], [2011 CUTLT 112 469], [2011 GUJ LH 1 757], [2011 ALR 86 450], [2011 RLW SC 3 2547], [2012 CCC SC 4 279]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138849/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aef4e4b014971141545b
The current status of this case is as follows:
The earlier Judgment contradicted by this one is Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors here.
Supreme Court has settled the following question of law:
the question of inheritance of co-parcenery property by the illegitimate children, who were born out of the live-in-relationship, could not arise.
Citations: [2010 AIR SCC 2685], [2010 AIR SCC 0 3503], [2010 CTC 3 654], [2010 JT 5 534], [2010 RCR CIVIL 3 252], [2010 SCCC 11 483], [2010 AD 6 478], [2010 SCC 0 515], [2010 SCCJ 5 442], [2010 ALT 5 4], [2010 LW 4 791], [2010 MLJ 7 953], [2010 SLT 4 419], [2010 AIOL 333], [2010 SCALE 6 53], [2010 SUPREME 4 433], [2010 SCCC CIV 4 498], [2010 AIC 91 54], [2010 CALLJ 2 176], [2010 ALR 81 230]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1513913/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aee7e4b0149711415176
This is contradicted (but NOT overruled) in Revanasiddappa And Another v. Mallikarjun And Others here.
Telangana High Court did not interfere with the divorce decree granted by lower Court and held so in the following Paras.
31. Therefore it appears that without any valid reason, the appellant deserted the respondent and denied him conjugal life. She also leveled false allegations that he and his family members demanded dowry. It appears that the appellant was left at her parents’ house by the respondent after she insisted on staying with her parents and threatened to commit suicide otherwise.
32. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Court below was right in holding that not only had the appellant deserted the respondent and avoided leading a marital life since February, 2014, but also her threat to commit suicide put the respondent at risk.
33. Also, the filing of the criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC by the appellant against the respondent would make it difficult for the parties to lead a happy marital life.
34. We are also of the view that when it is the very case of the appellant that the respondent and his family members had allegedly harassed her for dowry, why she is opposing the grant of divorce is inexplicable because if her contention were to be correct, she would herself be subjecting herself to further cruelty at the instance of the respondent.
35. In these circumstances, we do not deem it appropriate to interfere with the order passed by the Court below dissolving the marriage between the parties.
Citations: [
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/65011903/
Supreme Court held that without giving fair opportunity to the appellant, Disciplinary Committee could not have arrived at the conclusion of guilty.
Citations: [(2017) 4 SCC 713]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190018442/ or https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2017/06/01/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4/
Disclaimer:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
I have no control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in it’s entirety, not I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.
Karnataka High Court held that, an application for recalling of NBW has to be disposed of on same day of filing same.
Citations: [2019 SCC ONLINE KAR 473]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95097297/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c9e48a29eff430a019b99ba
https://bangaloremirror.indiatimes.com/bangalore/others/recall-applications-should-be-heard-and-disposed-of-same-day/articleshow/68678246.cms
Supreme Court held that, without eligibility for the post of District Judge, petitioners (who are subordinate judiciary) cannot claim stake for the post/continue in the post reserved for Advocates (25%) and hence they have to be reverted to their earlier posts.
From Para 48,
48. In the case of Dheeraj Mor and others cases, time to time interim orders have been passed by this Court, and incumbents in judicial service were permitted to appear in the examination. Though later on, this Court vacated the said interim orders, by that time certain appointments had been made in some of the States and in some of the States results have been withheld by the High Court owing to complication which has arisen due to participation of the ineligible in-service candidates as against the post reserved for the practising advocates. In the cases where such in-service incumbents have been appointed by way of direct recruitment from bar as we find no merit in the petitions and due to dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the judicial officers, as sequel no fruits can be ripened on the basis of selection without eligibility, they cannot continue as District Judges. They have to be reverted to their original post. In case their right in channel for promotion had already been ripened, and their juniors have been promoted, the High Court has to consider their promotion in accordance with prevailing rules. However, they cannot claim any right on the basis of such an appointment obtained under interim order, which was subject to the outcome of the writ petition and they have to be reverted.
Citations: [2020 SCC OnLine SC 213]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10432983/ or
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e52c0a93321bc1e173f86fc or
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/dheeraj-mor-versus-hon%E2%80%99ble-high-court-of-delhi or
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/practising-advocates-experience-gained-at-bar-injects-judicial-branch-with-fresh-perspectives-sc-152952 or
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/02/19/members-of-subordinate-judiciary-cant-claim-direct-recruitment-to-the-district-judge-post-under-quota-meant-for-practicing-advocates/ or
https://www.barandbench.com/news/breaking-judicial-officers-cant-be-considered-for-direct-recruitment-as-district-judges-under-quota-for-bar-sc
Bad Behavior has blocked 3950 access attempts in the last 7 days.
