News

In a strategic move responding to the domino effect set off by Cravath, Swaine & Moore’s recent pay adjustments, Milbank, a prominent U.S. law firm, has announced its decision to match Cravath’s elevated compensation structure for senior associates. This development comes hot on the heels of Cravath’s salary hike, which initially outshone Milbank’s own efforts …

Milbank Echoes Cravath’s Salary Surge, Unleashing a Cascade of Legal Compensation Boosts Read More »

In a recent groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court declared that the grant of bail for a limited period, following the conclusion that an individual is entitled to bail, is a violation of constitutional rights. The court emphasized that such practices infringe upon the fundamental right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India …

Supreme Court Strikes Down Limited-Term Bail: A Landmark Ruling on Constitutional Liberties Read More »

In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court dismissed a plea for specific performance in the execution of a re-conveyance deed, emphasizing that such a claim presupposes ownership by the opposing party. The court highlighted that the plaintiff, in this case, denied any right or title of the defendant over the property, making the relief of …

 Supreme Court Rejects Claim for Specific Performance in Re-Conveyance Deed Dispute Read More »

In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court clarified the ramifications of non-appearance by appellants during hearings. According to the Court, an appeal cannot be dismissed on its merits solely due to the appellant’s absence; instead, it should be dismissed for non-prosecution. This interpretation arises from the elucidation provided in Order XLI Rule 17 of …

Supreme Court Ruling: Appeals Cannot Be Dismissed on Merits if Appellant Fails to Appear, Must Be Dismissed for Non-Prosecution Read More »

In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that a legal suit seeking possession of property and a subsequent suit claiming damages for its use and occupation constitute distinct legal causes. This landmark decision came as the Court deliberated on an appeal challenging a trial court’s rejection, upheld by the High Court, to dismiss …

Supreme Court Affirms Legitimacy of Subsequent Damages Claim Following Possession Suit Read More »

In a groundbreaking decision dated November 30, the Supreme Court emphatically stated that the evaluation of evidence or merits of a controversy is impermissible when determining the rejection of a plaint application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.). The court asserted that this rule, outlining grounds for rejecting …

 Landmark Ruling: Supreme Court Clarifies Limitations on Examining Evidence in Rejection of Plaint Applications Read More »

In a recent development concerning the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act of 1999, the Supreme Court has asserted that the Lok Ayukta possesses only recommendatory jurisdiction. The court clarified that the Lok Ayukta, under Section 12(1) of the 1999 Act, lacks the authority to issue positive directions and can only submit a report to the relevant …

Supreme Court Clarifies Kerala Lok Ayukta’s Role: Limited to Recommendations, Cannot Issue Directives By Sheryl Sebastian  Read More »

In a recent decision, the Supreme Court has dismissed a suicide abetment case, shedding light on the crucial criteria for convicting an individual under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court, deliberating on the intricacies of Section 107 IPC which defines “abetment,” clarified that intentional encouragement leading to suicide must be meticulously …

Inadequate Proximity: Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Suicide Abetment Case Read More »

In a groundbreaking decision, the Supreme Court has brought clarity to the interpretation of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), emphasizing that a common intention among co-accused does not necessitate explicit prior agreements. Rather, it can be a psychological aspect formed even moments before the commission of the offense. The recent case before …

Supreme Court’s Landmark Ruling: Common Intention Under S. 34 IPC Doesn’t Mandate Prior Agreement, Can Arise Moments Before an Incident Read More »

In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court, on December 1, emphasized that framing charges against an accused is not mandatory if the essential elements of an offense are not evident from the admitted prosecution evidence. The Court, composed of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta, asserted this principle while adjudicating an appeal challenging the Allahabad …

Supreme Court Affirms: Charges Must Align with Evidentiary Ingredients, Unfounded Claims Dismissed Read More »