sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

August 29, 2025

S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Justice Sanjay Karol & Justice Krishna Murari 5 July 2023 Introduction In this significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India addressed the issue of whether a second Special Leave Petition (SLP) is maintainable after the withdrawal of the first one without liberty to file afresh. The Court referred the matter to a Larger Bench to settle the conflicting views that have arisen in previous judgments. Background and Facts The dispute involved a civil property matter where the petitioner initially filed an SLP before the Supreme Court challenging the High Court’s order. However, the first SLP was withdrawn without any liberty granted to file afresh. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a second SLP on the same cause of action. The respondent opposed its maintainability, contending that such a practice would amount to abuse of process. Issue Whether the withdrawal of an earlier SLP without liberty bars the filing of a second SLP on the same cause of action? Arguments Petitioner’s Arguments The withdrawal of the first SLP does not amount to res judicata. Since the earlier SLP was not adjudicated on merits, the petitioner retains the right to file another SLP. Dismissing the second SLP without hearing would curtail the fundamental right to access justice. Respondent’s Arguments A second SLP on the same issue is not maintainable once the first has been withdrawn. Such repeated filings would lead to forum shopping and delay in finality of litigation. Past judgments have stressed that withdrawal without liberty bars a fresh petition. Judgment The Supreme Court, noting conflicting precedents on the subject, referred the issue to a Larger Bench. It observed: The maintainability of a second SLP after withdrawal of the first without liberty requires authoritative clarification. Earlier rulings have taken divergent views, making judicial consistency necessary. Till such clarification, scrutiny of similar cases should be cautious to avoid abuse of process. Conclusion This judgment underscores the Supreme Court’s concern over repeated litigation and abuse of process in SLP filings. By referring the matter to a Larger Bench, the Court aims to ensure uniformity in law on the maintainability of second SLPs, striking a balance between access to justice and the need for finality in litigation. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

S. Narahari v. S.R. Kumar – Supreme Court Refers Maintainability of Second SLP after Withdrawal to Larger Bench (2023) Read More »

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony Justice Sanjiv Khanna & Justice Bela M. Trivedi 13 July 2023 Introduction This appeal arose from the conviction of Ranjeet Singh under Section 302 IPC for the alleged murder of Devnath/Deonath on 15 January 2010 in Madanpur forest, Chhattisgarh. The Trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment, and the Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed the decision. On appeal, the Supreme Court scrutinized the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence, especially the delayed testimonies of minor eyewitnesses, and set aside the conviction. Facts of the Case Incident (15 January 2010): Devnath went to the forest to collect firewood. Later, his son Vikas Kumar (PW-1) found him dead with head injuries near a blood-stained stone. FIR Registration: The FIR was lodged the same day by Vikas Kumar. It did not name any accused or mention eyewitnesses—only that “someone” killed the deceased. Investigation: Ranjeet Singh, the appellant, accompanied PW-1 and PW-2 to lodge the FIR. Later, it was alleged he absconded after a sniffer dog traced the blood-stained stone to his house. Eyewitness Statements: Nine days later, three minor girls—Anita (PW-13), Meena (PW-14), and Lali (PW-15)—claimed to have seen the murder. However, their testimony was doubted because of: Close family ties with other key witnesses, Their initial silence, and Contradictory accounts about whether they were even in the forest that day. Motive: The prosecution cited minor quarrels 2–3 months before the incident as the motive. Issue Whether the conviction of Ranjeet Singh under Section 302 IPC was sustainable given: The absence of direct evidence in the FIR, The delayed and doubtful testimonies of alleged eyewitnesses, Weak proof of motive, and Inconsistent claims of abscondence. Judgment Unreliable Eyewitnesses: The Court rejected the testimony of the three minors, finding their accounts doubtful due to delay, family influence, and contradictions. Defective FIR: The FIR did not name any accused or mention eyewitnesses, weakening the prosecution’s case. Weak Motive & Abscondence: Minor quarrels months before were insufficient to establish motive. The alleged abscondence was inconsistent and unproven. Failure of Prosecution: The prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Conviction based on circumstantial and doubtful evidence was unsustainable. Final Order: The Supreme Court set aside the conviction and life sentence, acquitting Ranjeet Singh. He was ordered to be released immediately unless required in another case. Conclusion The Supreme Court reaffirmed the principle that conviction must rest on clear, consistent, and credible evidence. Mere suspicion, delayed testimonies, or weak circumstantial proof cannot justify upholding a conviction under Section 302 IPC. The judgment highlights the Court’s cautious approach in safeguarding the rights of the accused where prosecution evidence is unreliable. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Ranjeet Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh – Supreme Court Acquittal in Murder Case for Unreliable Eyewitness Testimony (2023) Read More »

Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kashak Agarwala 29 AUG 2025 The Supreme Court of India grants journalist Abhisar Sharma four-week interim protection against arrest in Assam over a YouTube video, while directing him to challenge the FIR before the Gauhati High Court. Interim Protection by Supreme Court On Thursday, a Bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and N. Kotiswar Singh granted Abhisar Sharma a four-week interim protection against arrest in connection with a FIR filed over a YouTube video criticizing the Assam government. The Court declined to quash the FIR itself, clarifying that Sharma must approach the Gauhati High Court to challenge it. The Bench acknowledged his role as a journalist and stated that the protection was to ensure he could seek judicial relief without facing immediate arrest. FIR and Charges Invoked The FIR was registered on 21 August 2025, after Sharma criticized the Assam government for allotting 3,000 bighas of tribal land to a private entity and accused it of divisive politics. Charges under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) included: Section 152 BNS: Threatening sovereignty of the state Section 196 BNS: Encouragement of hostility between groups Section 197 BNS: Statements prejudicial to national integration The FIR alleged that Sharma mocked the government, ridiculed Ram Rajya, and encouraged communal hatred, negatively impacting national cohesion. Court Proceedings and Submissions Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued to annul the FIR and prevent multiple complaints arising from the same video. He emphasized the need for uniformity in prosecuting such cases. Justice Sundresh noted that even if the Supreme Court entertained the plea, the State could file another FIR, making the High Court the appropriate forum for challenging the FIR. The Bench granted interim protection for four weeks to allow Sharma to seek relief before the Gauhati High Court. Constitutional Challenge to Section 152 BNS Sharma contended that Section 152 BNS was unconstitutional, as it was a reform of the repealed Section 124A IPC, and argued that it is vague and overly broad, allowing potential misuse against critics. The petition invoked Articles 14, 19(1)(a), and 21 of the Constitution of India, claiming violations of equality, freedom of speech, and due process. The Supreme Court issued notice to the Central Government, linking Sharma’s challenge to other similar cases pending before the Court. Petition Grounds The petition argued that: Sharma’s video criticism was factual and verifiable, containing no incitement to violence. Freedom of speech includes criticism of government policies and political decisions. Prosecution under Section 152 BNS for journalistic reporting, including potential life imprisonment, is disproportionate and unconstitutional. Next Steps Interim protection: Four weeks for Sharma to approach the Gauhati High Court to quash the FIR. Constitutional challenge: Section 152 BNS case to be considered by the Supreme Court. Representation: Advocate Sumeer Sodhi filed the petition on behalf of Sharma. This ruling highlights press freedom, proportionality in criminal law, and safeguards for journalists under India’s democratic framework. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Read More »

Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DEEPAK SINGH THAKUR & ASSOCIATES Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Kashak Agarwala 29 AUG 2025 The Kerala High Court rules that trial courts cannot convict individuals for distributing obscene material without personally verifying video evidence, strengthening due process in obscenity cases under Section 292 IPC. Court Mandates Direct Judicial Verification The Kerala High Court has ruled that trial courts must personally watch and analyze video evidence before finding a person guilty of distributing obscene content. The judgment emphasizes that a video must meet the legal definition of obscenity and cannot be assessed solely based on witness testimony or police reports. Justice Kauser Edappagath allowed a criminal revision petition filed by Harikumar, a video shop operator from Kottayam, who was previously convicted for renting out allegedly obscene video cassettes. Background of the Case Incident: In the 1990s, authorities seized ten video cassettes from Harikumar’s video shop, claiming they contained obscene material. Charges: Filed under Section 292(2)(a), (c), and (d) of the Indian Penal Code, which addresses the sale, hire, distribution, and exhibition of obscene content. Trial Court Verdict: Two years imprisonment and a fine of ₹2,000. On appeal, the sentence was reduced to one year, but the conviction was upheld. Petitioner’s Claim: Harikumar argued the trial court never personally viewed the cassettes, relying instead on witness testimony and police reports. High Court Findings The Kerala High Court ruled: Primary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, like video cassettes, must be personally inspected by the trial judge. Viewing by the court is required to verify that the content is lascivious or obscene. Witness testimony and police reports may supplement evidence but cannot replace direct judicial examination. Justice Edappagath stressed that obscenity is a legal conclusion, not subjective hearsay, and requires direct contact with the material to determine whether it could deprave or corrupt viewers. Legal Principle on Obscenity Obscenity prosecutions demand strict adherence to evidentiary standards. Courts must personally verify content before a conviction under Section 292 IPC. The ruling ensures due process, protecting defendants against convictions based solely on indirect evidence. Outcome of the Case The High Court allowed Harikumar’s criminal revision petition. Conviction and sentence were nullified. Representation: Advocate M.P. Madhavankutty for the petitioner; Public Prosecutor Sangeetha Raj N.R. for the State. Significance This ruling reinforces that: Judicial examination is essential in obscenity cases. Convictions cannot rely solely on hearsay or official evaluation. It safeguards free speech, morality, and proper evidentiary procedure in criminal prosecutions. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Read More »

Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DEEPAK SINGH THAKUR & ASSOCIATES Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Kashak Agarwala 29 AUG 2025 A delegation of Gujarat High Court lawyers met Chief Justice of India BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant opposing the transfer of Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt to Madhya Pradesh High Court, citing his integrity and judicial contributions. GHCAA Delegation Meets CJI On Thursday, a delegation of the Gujarat High Court Advocates Association (GHCAA) met CJI BR Gavai and Justice Surya Kant to present a representation opposing the transfer of Justice Sandeep N. Bhatt to the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Since 26 August 2025, GHCAA has been on strike over the transfer proposal, which was approved by the Supreme Court Collegium during its meetings on 25–26 August 2025. Composition of the Delegation The GHCAA formed a special committee to advocate for the Bar’s interests. The delegation included: Brijesh J. Trivedi, GHCAA President Senior Advocate Asim Pandya Advocates Hardik Brahmbhatt, Babubhai Mangukiya, Dipen Dave, and Bhargav Bhatt The lawyers expressed their opposition to the transfer, emphasizing Justice Bhatt’s fairness, diligence, and integrity. Representation in Favor of Justice Bhatt The written representation highlighted Justice Bhatt’s judicial record: Promoted as a Judge in October 2021 Adjudicated approximately 19,000 cases over four years Maintained an industrious and respected presence in the Gujarat judiciary The Bar praised his integrity, stating it is “above suspicion,” and emphasized the respect he commands among his peers. Allegations Against the High Court Administration The representation criticized administrative practices under Chief Justice Sunita Agarwal, suggesting that Justice Bhatt’s transfer might be linked to administrative friction. Key examples included: Registrar AT Ukrani failed to return 15 case files to a Surat court within seven months (2019). Justice Bhatt questioned this delay. Following his order, the Chief Justice changed Justice Bhatt’s roster, moving him to a Division Bench under a senior judge, despite GHCAA’s objections. Further Controversies Justice Bhatt later handled service matter cases, where he noted deficiencies, including the failure to install CCTV cameras in judiciary departments. Some of his observations were expunged by a Division Bench. The Bar emphasized that Justice Bhatt never overstepped legal boundaries, maintaining adherence to judicial norms. Background of Justice Bhatt Education: Science degree from Kotak Science College, Rajkot (1988); Law degree (1992) Legal Career: Enrolled as advocate with Bar Council of Gujarat in 1993; practiced at Rajkot District Court with his father N.S. Bhatt Gujarat High Court: Joined in 1994 under late Girishbhai D. Bhatt; elevated to Judge in October 2021 after nearly 30 years in law Concerns Over the Transfer Process The GHCAA argued that judge transfers should not be routine. In Justice Bhatt’s case, they warned that the transfer could be perceived as stigmatic, potentially harming both his reputation and the judiciary’s credibility. The delegation could not meet all members of the Collegium but sent additional copies of the representation for consideration. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Read More »

Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DEEPAK SINGH THAKUR & ASSOCIATES Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Trump Signs Sweeping Economic Orders: Tariffs, Spending Cuts, and Immigration Clampdown Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Kashak Agarwala 29 AUG 2025 The Bombay High Court issues interim relief to Mumbai-based developer Chandiwala Enterprises, restraining Sanjay Nirupam from making defamatory communal remarks related to slum redevelopment. Temporary Relief to Developer The Bombay High Court has issued an interim injunction against Sanjay Nirupam, a leader of the Shiv Sena (Eknath Shinde faction) and former Congress Member of Parliament (MP) from Mumbai. Nirupam had allegedly made communal remarks defaming Chandiwala Enterprises, a Mumbai-based developer. The interim order, delivered by Justice R.I. Chagla, came in response to a plea filed by the developer alleging defamation and communal targeting. Accusations Against the Developer The dispute arose from the redevelopment of Shree Shankar Society in Malad, Mumbai. Nirupam had claimed in a letter dated 20 February 2025 and in subsequent press conferences that Muslim developers were illegally registering slums in Muslim names with the assistance of Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) officials. Chandiwala Enterprises argued that these statements were: Factually baseless. Communal in nature. Intended to damage the developer’s reputation and disrupt the redevelopment project. Court’s Prima Facie Findings Justice Chagla observed that the allegations were completely false. The Court noted that only 7 out of 67 residents of Shree Shankar Society were Muslim. Therefore, the claim that Muslim developers were involved in a secret campaign, colluding with SRA officials, was prima facie false. Pre-Trial Conduct of Defendant The Court highlighted that Nirupam had ignored successive legal notices in the defamation case. Notices sent to his home were reportedly torn and returned, and he failed to respond to communications via email or WhatsApp. An advocate eventually appeared on Nirupam’s behalf to request time to record a vakalatnama. Based on these facts, the Court held that a prima facie case against Nirupam was established. Operative Portion of the Order The interim order stated: “The Defendant is restrained, by means of temporary injunction, from making or publishing any defamatory, slanderous, or libelous statements as contained in the documents annexed at Exh.A to the Affidavit dated 9th August 2025.” The Court allowed Nirupam one week to file a vakalatnama and two weeks to submit a formal reply to the defamation suit. Next Hearing and Legal Representation The next hearing is scheduled for 10 September 2025. Chandiwala Enterprises was represented by Senior Advocate Janak Dwarkades, along with advocates Cherag Balsara, Yogesh Patil, and Sanjeev Singh, instructed by Ritesh Singh. Sanjay Nirupam was represented by advocate Mahesh B. Gupte. The Court’s order emphasizes protection against communal defamation while safeguarding the reputation of developers engaged in Mumbai’s slum redevelopment projects. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Trump Signs Sweeping Economic Orders: Tariffs, Spending Cuts, and Immigration Clampdown Sadalaw • August 28, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Read More »

Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023)

Leave a Comment / Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Interim Protection to Journalist Abhisar Sharma in Assam FIR Kerala High Court Rules Judges Must Personally View Obscene Video Evidence Before Conviction Gujarat HC Lawyers Meet CJI Over Transfer Proposal of Justice Sandeep Bhatt Bombay High Court Restrains Sanjay Nirupam from Making Communal Remarks Against Slum Developer Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Ankita Bhati , Dev Raj Singh Bhati 13 July 2023 Introduction This case deals with the transfer of matrimonial and connected criminal proceedings on the ground of the wife’s convenience. The Supreme Court reiterated the well-settled principle that in matrimonial disputes, the wife’s convenience must be given paramount importance while deciding transfer petitions under Section 25 of the CPC. Facts The petitioner–wife sought transfer of two matrimonial cases filed by the husband from Noida (U.P.) to Solan (Himachal Pradesh), where she was residing. She contended that attending proceedings at Noida would cause undue hardship. Issue Whether matrimonial and connected criminal proceedings should be transferred to the place of residence of the wife, applying the principle of “wife’s convenience” in transfer petitions. Held The Supreme Court allowed the transfer petitions, directing that the matrimonial and criminal cases pending at Noida be transferred to the competent court at Solan, Himachal Pradesh. Key Takeaways In matrimonial disputes, wife’s convenience is a paramount consideration for transfer of cases. The Court reiterated its settled position that forcing a wife to travel long distances to contest cases causes hardship and is contrary to the interests of justice. Transfer of connected criminal proceedings ensures effective adjudication and avoids multiplicity of litigation. Conclusion The judgment reinforces the protective approach of the Supreme Court in matrimonial matters by prioritizing the wife’s convenience while deciding transfer petitions. It ensures that women are not burdened with unnecessary hardship in pursuing legal remedies, while also promoting judicial efficiency by consolidating related proceedings before one court. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Aliya Ansari. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 29, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments The eligibility of extended limitation and penalties under Central Excise law in cases of alleged duty evasion by M/s Reliance Industries, based on bona fide classification disputes. Aliya Ansari • August 28, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Read More »

Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Ankita Bhati v. Dev Raj Singh Bhati – Supreme Court Reiterates Wife’s Convenience Paramount in Transfer of Matrimonial Cases (2023) Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT DEEPAK SINGH THAKUR & ASSOCIATES Mangilal v. State of Madhya Pradesh – Supreme Court Acquittal for Non-Compliance with Section 52A NDPS Act (2023) Trump Signs Sweeping Economic Orders: Tariffs, Spending Cuts, and Immigration Clampdown China Condemns Gaza Hospital Attack, Calls for Ceasefire Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 Kashak Agarwala 29 AUG 2025 The Supreme Court of India continues hearing the Presidential reference on deadlines for Governors and the President in granting assent to Bills. Key arguments by the Centre, States, and the Bench highlight crucial constitutional questions under Articles 200, 201, and 361. Introduction The Supreme Court of India on Thursday continued hearing the Presidential reference concerning the timelines and procedures for Governors of India and the President of India in dealing with Bills passed by State legislatures. The matter was heard by a five-judge Constitution Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, and Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P. S. Narasimha, and Atul S. Chandurak. The reference was made under Article 143(1) of the Constitution of India by President Droupadi Murmu, following a landmark ruling by the Supreme Court in April 2025 regarding the timelines for gubernatorial assent to Bills. Background of the Dispute In April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that although Article 200 does not prescribe a strict timeline for Governors to act on Bills, indefinite delays are unconstitutional. The Court directed that: Governors must decide within a reasonable time. Under Article 201, the President must act within three months. Reasons must be recorded for any delay. This ruling arose from a petition filed by the Government of Tamil Nadu, which alleged persistent delays by the Tamil Nadu Governor in granting assent. The Court also clarified that gubernatorial inaction can be judicially reviewed. Dissenting with this interpretation, President Murmu referred 14 constitutional questions to the Court, questioning whether the judiciary can impose such timelines without disturbing the principle of separation of powers. Centre’s Position: Judicial Overreach and Constitutional Immunity Representing the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that judicial time limits on Governors and the President are inconsistent with the Constitution. His key points included: Article 32 and Article 226 petitions cannot be maintained against Governors or the President. Under Article 361, the President and Governors enjoy constitutional immunity. Forcing them into mandamus proceedings would violate their prerogatives. Governors may withhold assent in the larger national interest if Bills potentially conflict with constitutional norms or national policies. Opposition to the Reference: Governors as Titular Heads Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for several States, strongly opposed the reference. He argued: Governors and the President act on the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers, except in limited constitutional exceptions. Under Article 200, Governors cannot indefinitely delay assent. Their options—grant assent, return the Bill, or reserve it for Presidential consideration—are all subject to ministerial advice. Historical records of the Constituent Assembly make clear that Governors are not meant to act as “super chief ministers”. If a Bill is unconstitutional, it is the **courts—not Governors—**that must strike it down. Bench’s Observations During the hearings, the Bench made several critical observations: CJI Gavai questioned whether allowing indefinite gubernatorial delays would defeat the will of the legislature. He highlighted that the Constitution’s phrase “as soon as possible” indicates prompt action. Justice Narasimha asked whether Governors had any autonomy when faced with potentially unconstitutional Bills. Singhvi maintained that Governors must still act on advice, with unconstitutional laws left to judicial review. The Bench acknowledged that courts must not disturb the constitutional balance, yet expressed concern over the dangers of indefinite inaction. What’s Next? After detailed arguments, the Constitution Bench adjourned the hearing. The matter will resume on Tuesday, focusing on: The scope of Articles 200, 201, and 361. The maintainability of writ petitions against Governors and the President. The outcome of this case will have far-reaching implications for Centre-State relations, constitutional governance, and the role of Governors in India’s parliamentary democracy. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sadalaw. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Trump Signs Sweeping Economic Orders: Tariffs, Spending Cuts, and Immigration Clampdown Sadalaw • August 28, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments China Condemns Gaza Hospital Attack, Calls for Ceasefire Sadalaw • August 28, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Presidential Reference on Deadlines for Governors: Supreme Court Hearing Enters Day 5 Read More »

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI

Leave a Comment / Internship /

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI Sweta Kumari About the Organisation Chambers for Justice is a dynamic law firm dedicated to delivering effective legal solutions with an unwavering commitment to justice and fairness. Backed by a team of experienced advocates and a client-centric approach, we aim to uphold the rule of law and secure the best possible outcomes for our clients. Number of Positions 10 Eligibility Students are currently pursuing a 3-year or 5-year LL.B. program. Strong research and analytical abilities. Proficiency in written and verbal communication. Prior internship experience is an advantage, but not compulsory Final-year law students who are enthusiastic to learn and contribute meaningfully. Candidates who can commit to the full duration of the internship. Mode of Internship Hybrid (Delhi-based students preferred) Duration 1 month (extendable based on performance). Work Timings Monday to Saturday, 9:30 AM to 5:00 PM Important Date August 31, 2025 How to Apply? Interested candidates are required to apply through the following Google Form: Click here to Apply Never miss an opportunity! Click to join our whatsapp channel More Oppurtunities LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 1 2 3 Next »

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT CHAMBERS FOR JUSTICE, DELHI Read More »

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM

Leave a Comment / Internship /

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM Sweta Kumari About the Internship Avneesh Arputham is an advocate on record in the Supreme Court of India. He has done his LLM in international commercial law from the London School of Economics (LSE). After working in the House of Commons, UK Parliament, he worked in Economic Laws Practice, and thereafter set up his independent litigation practice. He specializes in white-collar crime, environmental law, and constitutional law. The Internship commences from 1st September 2025. Preference will be given to interns looking for an offline/physical internship. Eligibility Candidates must be in their 3rd year or higher for a 5-year course, or in their 2nd year or higher for a 3-year course. Candidates having previous internship experience in the Supreme Court will be given preference. Location Bengali Market, New Delhi How to Apply? Interested candidates can email their CV along with a covering letter to office.avneesharputham@gmail.com. Never miss an opportunity! Click to join our whatsapp channel More Oppurtunities LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT RISHABH GANDHI AND ADVOCATES Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 LEGAL JOB OPPORTUNITY AT UTKRISHTHA LAW OFFICES Sadalaw • August 29, 2025 1 2 3 Next »

LEGAL INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT AVNEESH ARPUTHAM Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote