sadalawpublications.com

A DYNAMIC LAW JOURNAL

Menu

Sada Law

Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal: Union Government’s Power Affirmed

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal: Union Government’s Power Affirmed Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal: Union Government’s Power Affirmed REHA BHARGAV 11 June 2025 Supreme Court affirms the Union Government‘s power to abolish the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (OAT), ruling that the Odisha High Court can effectively handle transferred service matters. Explore the judgment, case facts, and its impact on administrative justice. Introduction to Orissa Administrative Tribunal Abolition Case The landmark case Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association v. Union of India & Ors., decided on March 21, 2023, addresses the constitutional validity of abolishing the Orissa Administrative Tribunal (OAT). Established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the OAT adjudicated service matters of Odisha state employees for over three decades. The Union Government, with Odisha’s concurrence, abolished the tribunal in 2019, transferring pending cases to the Orissa High Court. This decision triggered legal challenges based on concerns over access to justice, judicial independence, and the powers of the government under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Facts of the Case: Abolition of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal Establishment: OAT was formed in 1986 to resolve service disputes involving Odisha state government employees. Abolition Notification: In August 2019, the Union Government issued a notification abolishing OAT under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act. Case Transfer: All pending cases were transferred to the Orissa High Court. Challenge: The Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association contested the abolition in the Supreme Court, citing potential negative impacts on justice delivery. Legal Issues Considered by the Supreme Court Was the Union Government legally empowered to abolish the OAT? The Court examined if the Union of India had the authority under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and General Clauses Act, 1897 to revoke the tribunal’s establishment. Did abolition violate access to justice or judicial independence? The case questioned whether shifting service matters to the High Court hindered litigants’ rights or compromised judicial effectiveness. Was transferring cases to the Orissa High Court constitutionally valid? The Court evaluated the High Court’s capacity to handle specialized service matters originally under OAT jurisdiction. Arguments from Both Sides Petitioners’ Arguments The abolition was arbitrary and affected thousands of state employees relying on OAT for speedy, cost-effective resolution. The Orissa High Court is overburdened and lacks tribunal specialization. Section 21 of the General Clauses Act should not revoke a statutory tribunal without explicit legislative authority. Respondents’ Arguments The Union Government acted within its legal rights to abolish OAT under Section 21. Many states do not have separate administrative tribunals, yet their High Courts effectively manage service cases. Policy decisions on tribunal restructuring are executive prerogatives and not liable to judicial interference unless unconstitutional or arbitrary. Supreme Court Judgment: Upholding the Abolition On March 21, 2023, the Supreme Court delivered a decisive ruling affirming the constitutionality of abolishing the Orissa Administrative Tribunal. The bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and Justice Hima Kohli, stated: Tribunals are statutory bodies without vested rights to exist permanently. Executive decisions to dissolve tribunals fall within legal policy discretion. The Orissa High Court is competent to handle service matters transferred from OAT. No violation of access to justice or judicial independence occurred by abolishing the tribunal. The Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal Bar Association, validating the government’s action. Conclusion: Impact on Administrative Justice and Tribunal Restructuring This Supreme Court judgment underscores the Union Government’s power to restructure judicial forums, including abolishing state administrative tribunals like OAT, provided constitutional safeguards are maintained. It highlights that administrative tribunals are not permanent fixtures and their continuation depends on legislative and executive policies. The ruling reinforces that service matters can be effectively managed by High Courts, ensuring continued access to justice. It sets a significant precedent on the balance between executive discretion and judicial oversight in administrative justice reforms. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal: Union Government’s Power Affirmed Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal: Union Government’s Power Affirmed Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Upholds Abolition of Orissa Administrative Tribunal: Union Government’s Power Affirmed Read More »

Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023)

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Empowers Victims: Right to Appeal Acquittals Confirmed Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) REHA BHARGAV 11 June 2025 Explore the Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023), where the Court upheld anticipatory bail post-charge-sheet and addressed the issue of mechanical judicial remand. Understand its impact on white-collar crime cases and personal liberty under Article 21. Introduction – Why This Case Matters In Mahdoom Bava v. Central Bureau of Investigation, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling on March 20, 2023, concerning anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The case, involving alleged financial fraud, raised critical issues regarding personal liberty, judicial remand practices, and procedural fairness in economic offences. This ruling is particularly relevant for white-collar crime cases, where arrest isn’t always necessary for investigation, yet accused individuals face the risk of mechanical remand by trial courts. Background and Facts of the Case Key Details Petitioner: Mahdoom Bava Respondent: Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) FIR: RC 219/2019/E0006 Offence Alleged: Financial fraud and corruption Date of Judgment: March 20, 2023 Bench: Justice V. Ramasubramanian & Justice Pankaj Mithal The CBI filed a charge-sheet without seeking custodial interrogation. However, Mahdoom Bava, apprehensive of arrest and judicial remand, sought anticipatory bail, which was denied by the Allahabad High Court. He then approached the Supreme Court of India, which granted interim protection in January and a final order in March. Core Legal Issue Can anticipatory bail under Section 438 CrPC be granted after a charge-sheet is filed but before arrest, especially when there is a genuine apprehension of judicial remand and no custodial interrogation is sought? Petitioner’s Arguments Real Apprehension of Remand: Despite no request for custody, trial courts tend to remand accused upon appearance. Section 438 CrPC Still Applicable: Filing of a charge-sheet does not bar anticipatory bail if the individual hasn’t been arrested. Violation of Article 21 of the Constitution: Arrest without need violates personal liberty. No Risk of Flight or Evidence Tampering: The petitioner fully cooperated with the investigation. Support from Judicial Precedents: Courts have historically interpreted anticipatory bail liberally, especially in economic offences. CBI’s Counterarguments Anticipatory Bail Not Valid Post-Charge-Sheet: CBI argued the remedy becomes infructuous after filing the charge-sheet. Seriousness of Offence: The gravity of alleged financial fraud warranted stricter custody norms. Judicial Remand Still Applicable: Even if custody isn’t sought, judicial remand can be ordered. Limiting Anticipatory Bail: Referred to prior rulings discouraging misuse of anticipatory bail to avoid due process. Supreme Court Judgment Highlights Key Takeaways from the Judgment Anticipatory Bail Is Maintainable Post-Charge-Sheet: The Court affirmed that anticipatory bail is valid even after the charge-sheet is filed if arrest hasn’t occurred. Criticism of Mechanical Remand: The Court warned against routine remand orders that ignore the context and necessity. Protection of Personal Liberty: Arrests must not compromise constitutional protections without solid grounds. No Justification for Denial of Bail: Since the CBI didn’t seek custody, judicial remand was unnecessary. Conclusion – Strengthening Individual Liberty in Criminal Justice The Supreme Court’s ruling in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI sets a crucial precedent. It affirms that anticipatory bail remains valid post-charge-sheet, provided the accused hasn’t been arrested and faces a legitimate threat of judicial custody. It challenges the mechanical remand practices and reiterates that personal liberty under Article 21 must not be sacrificed to procedural routine. This decision strengthens rights-based jurisprudence, especially in white-collar crime cases, ensuring that bail laws evolve in line with constitutional values. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Arbitration Appeals: Limits on Remand and Emphasis on Efficiency in Bombay Slum Redevelopment Case (2024) Supreme Court Judgment on Arbitration Appeals: Limits on Remand and Emphasis on Efficiency in Bombay Slum Redevelopment Case (2024) Sada Law • June 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Affirms Right to Anticipatory Bail Post-Charge-Sheet in Mahdoom Bava v. CBI (2023) Read More »

Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case

Leave a Comment / 2023, Case law /

Trending Today Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Empowers Victims: Right to Appeal Acquittals Confirmed The Fodder Scam Redux: Supreme Court Revives Corruption Trials in Bihar Ahead of Elections Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case REHA BHARGAV 11 June 2025 The Supreme Court’s 2023 judgment in Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi raises key questions on High Court jurisdiction over CAT orders. Learn how this case impacts service law, administrative justice, and whistleblower protection in India. Landmark Case: Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi (2023) On March 3, 2023, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant judgment in Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi & Ors., addressing a critical legal question:Can a High Court entertain a writ petition against an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) when the tribunal is located outside the court’s territorial jurisdiction? The Supreme Court refrained from issuing a conclusive verdict and instead referred the matter to a larger constitutional bench, recognizing its wide-reaching implications on service law, jurisdictional clarity, and judicial review in administrative matters. Case Background: Who Is Sanjiv Chaturvedi? Sanjiv Chaturvedi is a 2002-batch Indian Forest Service (IFS) officer, well-known for his whistleblowing role in exposing corruption during his tenure. His efforts earned public attention, but also resulted in transfers and disciplinary actions, sparking a complex legal battle over inter-cadre deputation from Haryana to Uttarakhand. While the Uttarakhand Government supported his transfer, the Government of India opposed it, leading Chaturvedi to file a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Legal Issue: Territorial Jurisdiction of High Courts Over CAT Orders The primary legal question was: Does a High Court have jurisdiction to review an order passed by the CAT Principal Bench in New Delhi if the cause of action occurred in another state? This issue arose after the Uttarakhand High Court overturned the CAT’s decision to transfer Chaturvedi’s original application to Delhi. The Union Government challenged this in the Supreme Court, arguing that only the Delhi High Court had jurisdiction over CAT orders issued by its Principal Bench. Union of India’s Argument The Union of India asserted that: Only the Delhi High Court had territorial jurisdiction since the CAT Principal Bench passed the order in New Delhi. Chaturvedi’s posting in Uttarakhand was irrelevant to jurisdiction. Allowing multiple High Courts to review CAT orders could lead to conflicting rulings and forum shopping. Sanjiv Chaturvedi’s Argument Chaturvedi countered that: The cause of action arose entirely in Uttarakhand, including the administrative decisions he challenged. Under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution, any High Court can exercise jurisdiction if any part of the cause of action arises within its territory. Forcing all such reviews to Delhi would undermine access to justice and overburden the Delhi High Court. Supreme Court’s Judgment: Referred to Larger Bench Rather than resolving the jurisdictional issue, the Supreme Court—led by Justice M.R. Shah and Justice B.V. Nagarathna—recognized its constitutional importance and referred it to a larger bench for an authoritative interpretation. The Court acknowledged that service-related cases often involve officers posted across the country, and inconsistency in jurisdictional rules would disrupt the uniformity of administrative justice. Key Legal Implications This case touches on broader themes critical to Indian jurisprudence: Judicial review of tribunal decisions under Article 226 Inter-cadre deputation rules for IFS and other All India Services officers Whistleblower protection in the Indian civil service Territorial jurisdiction and High Court powers in administrative law Conclusion: Awaiting Clarity on CAT Jurisdiction The Supreme Court’s approach in Union of India v. Sanjiv Chaturvedi underscores the need for a uniform legal standard on the territorial jurisdiction of High Courts over CAT orders. Until the larger constitutional bench delivers a final ruling, civil servants and legal professionals must navigate this gray area with caution. This case not only affects Sanjiv Chaturvedi but sets the stage for far-reaching implications across service law, judicial review, and the protection of honest public servants in India. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Arbitration Appeals: Limits on Remand and Emphasis on Efficiency in Bombay Slum Redevelopment Case (2024) Supreme Court Judgment on Arbitration Appeals: Limits on Remand and Emphasis on Efficiency in Bombay Slum Redevelopment Case (2024) Sada Law • June 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Divorced Muslim Women Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Despite 1986 Act Supreme Court Affirms Divorced Muslim Women Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Despite 1986 Act Sada Law • June 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Can High Courts Review CAT Orders from Outside Their Jurisdiction? Supreme Court Seeks Clarity in Sanjiv Chaturvedi Case Read More »

Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Empowers Victims: Right to Appeal Acquittals Confirmed The Fodder Scam Redux: Supreme Court Revives Corruption Trials in Bihar Ahead of Elections Why the Supreme Court Revoked Bail for Ex-Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni in Murder Case Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 11 June 2025 The Supreme Court granted two journalists interim protection from arrest in a Madhya Pradesh FIR case involving sand mafia reporting. Learn the full story, legal developments, and the court’s directive to seek relief from the High Court. Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists Accused in Madhya Pradesh FIR On June 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India provided interim protection from arrest to two journalists—journalists Shashikant Jatav and Amarkant Singh Chouhan—involved in a police FIR registered in Madhya Pradesh. The journalists alleged police assault following their investigative reports on the illegal activities of the sand mafia operating near the Chambal River. Journalists Accuse Police of Assault Linked to Sand Mafia Coverage The plea, filed by the journalists from Bhind, claimed they were physically assaulted by state police officials due to their reporting on illegal sand mining. The bench comprising Justice P.K. Mishra and Justice Manmohan heard the petition and acknowledged the seriousness of the allegations. Two-Week Interim Protection Granted by Supreme Court The Supreme Court granted a two-week window of protection from arrest, instructing the journalists to approach the jurisdictional High Court for relief. The bench observed: “Although we are not inclined to consider this petition under Article 32, given the nature of the allegations, the petitioners shall not be arrested for two weeks, during which time they may seek appropriate relief from the High Court.” Delhi High Court Earlier Approached—Clarification Provided The bench noted that the petitioners had earlier approached the Delhi High Court. However, Advocate Warisha Farasat, representing the petitioners, clarified that the current plea is limited to seeking protection from coercive action, a request not raised in the previous filing. State of Madhya Pradesh Alleges Extortion—Petitioners Deny Claims During the hearing, the counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh alleged that over 10 complaints had been made against the journalists for supposed extortion. Advocate Farasat firmly refuted these allegations, stating, “We are here because we are actually fearing for our lives.” Next Legal Step: High Court to Examine Petitioners’ Claims The Supreme Court emphasized that the matters raised—including police misconduct, extortion allegations, and press freedom—should now be taken up by the jurisdictional High Court. The interim relief ensures that the petitioners are not arrested before the High Court evaluates their request. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Grants Interim Relief to Journalists in MP FIR Case, Directs Them to Seek High Court Protection Read More »

Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Empowers Victims: Right to Appeal Acquittals Confirmed The Fodder Scam Redux: Supreme Court Revives Corruption Trials in Bihar Ahead of Elections Why the Supreme Court Revoked Bail for Ex-Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni in Murder Case INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ECONOMIC LAW PRACTICE Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 11 June 2025 The Supreme Court of India stays the Madras High Court’s order halting NHAI‘s toll collection on the Madurai-Tuticorin highway, citing the need for further review. Learn about the legal conflict, road maintenance concerns, and toll collection debate. Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order on NHAI Toll Collection in Madurai-Tuticorin On June 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a stay on the Madras High Court‘s directive to halt toll collection on the Madurai–Tuticorin Highway. This decision temporarily allows the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to resume toll collection while the matter undergoes further judicial review. Bench Grants Interim Relief to NHAI The ruling came during a hearing of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the NHAI. The judicial bench comprised Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan, who allowed the interim relief. Representing the NHAI was N. Venkataraman, the Additional Solicitor General of India, who argued that the toll collection should continue until a full hearing is conducted. Opposition Terms Toll as ‘Daylight Robbery’ Senior Advocate P. Wilson, appearing for the respondents, fiercely opposed the stay. He called the toll collection “daylight robbery” given the highway’s poor condition. He argued that despite prior commitments, the NHAI had failed to repair the road, forcing commuters to pay tolls without receiving proper infrastructure services. Supreme Court Emphasizes Legal Procedure Despite Wilson’s concerns, the bench noted that the original writ petition filed in the High Court did not directly request a halt in toll collection. They emphasized due process and instructed Wilson to file a counter-affidavit. Justice Manmohan remarked, “Allow them to recover (toll) for now; then we can assess the situation.” High Court’s Initial Ban Based on Road Conditions On June 3, a division bench of Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice A. D. Maria Clete of the Madras High Court halted toll collection, citing the NHAI’s failure to maintain the highway. The court highlighted that according to the National Highways Authority of India Act, 1988, toll collection is legally valid only if roads are properly maintained. Court Asserts Public Right to Well-Maintained Roads The High Court ruled that tolls should not be charged unless highways meet maintenance standards. “It is the duty of the National Highways Authority of India to ensure proper maintenance,” the order stated. Road users, the court emphasized, are entitled to quality infrastructure before being charged toll fees. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Stays Madras HC Order Stopping NHAI Toll Collection on Madurai-Tuticorin Highway Read More »

Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Empowers Victims: Right to Appeal Acquittals Confirmed The Fodder Scam Redux: Supreme Court Revives Corruption Trials in Bihar Ahead of Elections Why the Supreme Court Revoked Bail for Ex-Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni in Murder Case INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ECONOMIC LAW PRACTICE Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni in BJP Worker Yogesh Gowda Murder Case Over Witness Tampering Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 11 June 2025 The Supreme Court denied an urgent hearing for Tamil Nadu’s lawsuit against the Centre over Rs 2291 crore in educational funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme, citing no urgency. The case highlights tensions over NEP 2020 and PM SHRI Schools implementation. Supreme Court Denies Urgent Hearing in Tamil Nadu vs Centre Education Funds Dispute On June 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India declined an urgent listing of a lawsuit filed by the Tamil Nadu Government against the Central Government of India. The suit demands the release of over Rs 2291 crore under the centrally-sponsored Samagra Shiksha Scheme (SSS). Key Judges Cite Lack of Urgency A bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan declined to list the case during the court’s partial working days. The judges maintained that there was no immediate urgency in the matter, despite pleas from Senior Advocate P. Wilson, who stressed that the fund delay was affecting around 48 lakh students across government schools in Tamil Nadu. Impact on Students and the New Academic Year According to Wilson, the absence of funds is jeopardizing the implementation of the Right to Education Act in Tamil Nadu. The academic year had already begun on June 3, and the lack of financial support was impeding basic infrastructure and learning services in schools. When questioned by the bench on the timing of the issue, it was revealed that the State filed the suit on May 20, 2025, following non-allocation of the funds during the previous academic year. Centre’s Withholding Tied to NEP 2020 and PM SHRI Implementation Tamil Nadu alleges that the Centre is withholding funds because the state has not implemented the National Education Policy 2020 and the PM SHRI Schools initiative. Under Article 131 of the Constitution, Tamil Nadu’s original suit seeks a judicial directive mandating the Central Government to release the Rs 2291 crore plus interest. Constitutional Challenge to Conditional Funding The lawsuit also includes a demand for a formal declaration stating that linking the release of Samagra Shiksha Scheme funds to the implementation of NEP 2020 and PM SHRI Schools is “unconstitutional, illegal, unreasonable, and arbitrary.” Tamil Nadu argues that such conditional funding undermines cooperative federalism and adversely affects millions of students. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Refuses Urgent Hearing of Tamil Nadu’s Lawsuit Against Centre Over Rs 2291 Crore Education Funds Dispute Read More »

Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Empowers Victims: Right to Appeal Acquittals Confirmed The Fodder Scam Redux: Supreme Court Revives Corruption Trials in Bihar Ahead of Elections Why the Supreme Court Revoked Bail for Ex-Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni in Murder Case INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ECONOMIC LAW PRACTICE Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni in BJP Worker Yogesh Gowda Murder Case Over Witness Tampering INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT THE CASE LAW Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 11 June 2025 The Kerala High Court affirms that a widow cannot be evicted from her matrimonial home by in-laws, citing Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act. Learn more about this landmark ruling. Landmark Judgment Protects Widow’s Right to Residence In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court declared that a widow cannot be evicted from her matrimonial home, even after the death of her husband. The case involved a 41-year-old woman who filed a complaint alleging that her in-laws were attempting to remove her and her children from the house she once shared with her late husband. Legal Protection Under the Domestic Violence Act The woman sought legal relief from the Sessions Court of Palakkad under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Initially, her plea was dismissed by a magistrate, but the Sessions Court overturned the decision, granting her protection and the right to remain in the residence. High Court Dismisses In-Laws’ Petition The in-laws challenged the Sessions Court’s verdict, bringing the case to the High Court. However, the petition was dismissed. Justice M.B. Snehalatha emphasized that, under Section 17 of the Domestic Violence Act, every woman in a domestic relationship has the legal right to reside in the shared household, regardless of legal ownership or title. Arguments by In-Laws Rejected The in-laws argued that the woman owned another property and no longer resided in the house after her husband’s death, thereby nullifying the domestic relationship. They contended that the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act should not apply to their situation. However, the court found sufficient evidence that the in-laws were attempting to forcibly evict the woman and her children, constituting an act of domestic violence under the law. Court Reaffirms the Objective of the Domestic Violence Act In its final observation, the court reaffirmed that the Domestic Violence Act is a landmark legislation crafted to protect the rights and dignity of women in domestic relationships. The court upheld the Sessions Court’s order and confirmed the woman’s right to live in her marital home. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Sada Law • June 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Kerala High Court Upholds Widow’s Right to Marital Home Under Domestic Violence Act Read More »

Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Empowers Victims: Right to Appeal Acquittals Confirmed The Fodder Scam Redux: Supreme Court Revives Corruption Trials in Bihar Ahead of Elections Why the Supreme Court Revoked Bail for Ex-Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni in Murder Case INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ECONOMIC LAW PRACTICE Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni in BJP Worker Yogesh Gowda Murder Case Over Witness Tampering INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT THE CASE LAW Allahabad High Court Grants Relief to BBC Journalist in Mosque Demolition FIR and Passport NOC Case Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case PRABHAT KUMAR BILTORIA 11 June 2025 Justice Madhav J Jamdar of the Bombay High Court cites extended working hours, late-night drafting, and weekend hearings as causes for the delay in uploading a long-awaited property judgment. Extended Workload Delays Judgment Upload at the Bombay High Court Justice Madhav J Jamdar of the Bombay High Court recently clarified the delay in uploading a judgment delivered five months earlier in the case of Alka Shrirang Chavan & Anr. vs. Hemchandra Rajaram Bhonsale & Ors. Although pronounced on December 19, 2024, the judgment was only uploaded on May 30, 2025, due to mounting case backlog. Reasons Behind the Delay in Uploading the Judgment Justice Jamdar pointed to extended court sessions, late-night order drafting, and consistent work during weekends and holidays. He stated that he frequently worked 2 to 2.5 hours after court hours, often leaving chambers by 10:30 to 11:30 PM and reviewing case files at home until 2 AM. “I regularly preside beyond official hours, sign orders late into the night, study case materials each morning, and work during weekends to manage the backlog,” he explained in the order published on the court’s website. Case Background: Property Dispute Dating Back to 1986 The bench was considering appeals linked to an execution order involving possession of property in a case originally filed in 1986 for specific performance of an agreement dated December 24, 1984. During the litigation, the judgment-debtor executed eight registered sale deeds between May 7 and August 31, 1987, transferring ownership to third parties. Execution of 1990 Decree Challenged by Subsequent Purchasers On November 30, 1990, the trial court ordered specific performance, requiring the defendant to execute a sale deed and hand over possession. However, the subsequent purchasers pendente lite resisted this. In response, the plaintiff submitted an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The executing court granted the application, and the decision was upheld on appeal. High Court Upholds Doctrine of Lis Pendens The appellants argued that their registered title overrode the decree since they acquired the property before the decree was issued. However, the High Court rejected this, affirming that the sales occurred after the lawsuit began on April 28, 1986. Therefore, the doctrine of lis pendens, under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, applied. The Court emphasized that the 1990 decree explicitly ordered a sale deed and vacant possession in favor of the plaintiff, and that the pendente lite purchasers had no enforceable right. Bombay Amendment and Execution Rules Interpretation Justice Jamdar further examined objections under Order XXI Rules 97–106 CPC in light of the Bombay Amendment. He dismissed claims that the omission of Rule 102 allowed pendente lite purchasers to bypass the decree. The amended Rule 98(2) directs the Court to grant possession to decree-holders if the obstruction is proven to come from a transferee during pending litigation. Decree Validity and Supreme Court Precedent The High Court also rejected the argument that the 1990 decree was invalid. Justice Jamdar stressed that it was issued by a competent court following due process. Accepting the appellant’s view, he warned, would undermine the Supreme Court’s 1972 ruling in Jayaram Mudaliar v. Ayyaswami. Final Verdict: Appeals Dismissed and Possession Upheld The Court dismissed the appeals, ruling that the appellants had no independent right to challenge execution. Their interests were deemed fully subordinate to those of the decree-holder. The interim relief provided during the appeal process was extended for an additional three months from the date of the uploaded judgment. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Live Cases Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Sada Law • June 11, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Sada Law • June 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Sada Law • June 10, 2025 • Live cases • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Bombay High Court Judge Cites Long Work Hours and Backlog for Delayed Judgment Upload in Landmark Property Dispute Case Read More »

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Empowers Victims: Right to Appeal Acquittals Confirmed The Fodder Scam Redux: Supreme Court Revives Corruption Trials in Bihar Ahead of Elections Why the Supreme Court Revoked Bail for Ex-Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni in Murder Case INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ECONOMIC LAW PRACTICE Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni in BJP Worker Yogesh Gowda Murder Case Over Witness Tampering INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT THE CASE LAW Allahabad High Court Grants Relief to BBC Journalist in Mosque Demolition FIR and Passport NOC Case JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LEXLEGIS.AI, DELHI Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Kashish jahan 10 June 2025 Supreme Court of India orders permanent alimony and home ownership rights for divorced women, enhancing financial security and gender justice. Learn about this landmark ruling and its impact on divorce settlements. A New Dawn for Divorced Women’s Financial Security For many divorced women in India, life after separation can be challenging—facing financial insecurity, social stigma, and the daunting task of rebuilding their lives. Recently, the Supreme Court of India delivered a landmark ruling that promises a brighter future for divorced women by ensuring permanent alimony and granting home ownership rights. Supreme Court’s Groundbreaking Alimony and Property Order The case involved a woman who was initially awarded a modest monthly alimony of ₹20,000 by the Calcutta High Court. Considering her ex-husband’s substantial monthly income of ₹4 lakh and her lack of income or property, the Supreme Court found the alimony insufficient. The apex court increased the monthly alimony to ₹50,000 and ordered a 5% increment every two years to adjust for inflation. More importantly, the Court directed the transfer of the family home’s ownership to her name, recognizing the need for tangible security beyond monthly payments. Why This Ruling is Revolutionary for Divorced Women This verdict acknowledges the often overlooked sacrifices homemakers make, such as quitting jobs or sacrificing career growth to manage households. By granting both permanent alimony and home ownership, the Supreme Court has empowered divorced women with financial stability and dignity. Impact on Gender Justice and Future Divorce Settlements This ruling marks a significant step forward in gender justice, setting a powerful precedent for future cases. Courts are encouraged to consider the real-life impact of their decisions and provide divorced women with more than just temporary financial aid—helping them truly thrive post-divorce. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Why the Supreme Court Revoked Bail for Ex-Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni in Murder Case Why the Supreme Court Revoked Bail for Ex-Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni in Murder Case Sada Law • June 10, 2025 • Case law, Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Arbitration Appeals: Limits on Remand and Emphasis on Efficiency in Bombay Slum Redevelopment Case (2024) Supreme Court Judgment on Arbitration Appeals: Limits on Remand and Emphasis on Efficiency in Bombay Slum Redevelopment Case (2024) Sada Law • June 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Divorced Muslim Women Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Despite 1986 Act Supreme Court Affirms Divorced Muslim Women Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Despite 1986 Act Sada Law • June 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Landmark Ruling: Permanent Alimony and Home Ownership Rights for Divorced Women Read More »

Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India

Leave a Comment / Live cases /

Trending Today Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Supreme Court Empowers Victims: Right to Appeal Acquittals Confirmed The Fodder Scam Redux: Supreme Court Revives Corruption Trials in Bihar Ahead of Elections Why the Supreme Court Revoked Bail for Ex-Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni in Murder Case INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT ECONOMIC LAW PRACTICE Supreme Court Cancels Bail of Congress MLA Vinay Kulkarni in BJP Worker Yogesh Gowda Murder Case Over Witness Tampering INTERNSHIP OPPORTUNITY AT THE CASE LAW Allahabad High Court Grants Relief to BBC Journalist in Mosque Demolition FIR and Passport NOC Case JOB OPPORTUNITY AT LEXLEGIS.AI, DELHI Supreme Court Urges Indian Railways to Adopt Technology for Preventing Cargo Weight Disputes Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Kashish jahan 10 June 2025 Discover how the Supreme Court of India’s landmark alimony verdict in India redefines divorced women’s rights by ensuring dignity, property ownership, and inflation-adjusted maintenance. Introduction: More Than Money — Alimony as a Matter of Dignity For decades, the question of what a separated woman truly deserves after divorce has sparked debate in Indian courts. Recently, the Supreme Court delivered a landmark alimony verdict that goes beyond financial survival—establishing maintenance as a right to live with dignity. The Case: Long-Term Separation and Legal Limbo In this groundbreaking case, a woman separated from her husband for over twenty years found herself without a stable income or home. While the marriage had ended years ago, the financial and emotional burden remained, with her former husband retaining assets they had once built together. Supreme Court’s Historic Judgment on Alimony and Property Rights The Supreme Court awarded the woman ₹50,000 monthly alimony with a 5% increase every two years to address inflation. More notably, the court directed the transfer of ownership of a house to her—a rare and significant decision in Indian alimony cases. Recognizing Homemakers’ Contributions The court emphasized that homemakers, who sacrifice their careers and financial independence, are often overlooked in legal discussions. This verdict acknowledges their sacrifices and calls for post-divorce arrangements that fairly compensate for these contributions. Inflation-Protected Maintenance: A Progressive Approach By including periodic hikes in alimony payments, the Supreme Court recognized the reality of rising living expenses. This ensures that maintenance payments do not lose value over time, providing ongoing financial security. Why This Verdict Matters: Setting a New Precedent for Divorce Rights in India This judgment sets a powerful precedent, affirming that alimony is not just about monthly payments but about rebuilding lives after divorce. It could become a benchmark in protecting the rights and dignity of many women who leave broken marriages with limited support. Conclusion: Redefining Marital Rights and Responsibilities in India As India continues to evolve its legal stance on divorce and spousal support, this Supreme Court ruling highlights the importance of dignity, fairness, and recognition of homemakers’ sacrifices in alimony cases. It signals a positive shift toward more equitable treatment of divorced women. Leave a Reply Cancel Reply Logged in as Sada Law. Edit your profile. Log out? Required fields are marked * Message* Case Laws Why the Supreme Court Revoked Bail for Ex-Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni in Murder Case Why the Supreme Court Revoked Bail for Ex-Karnataka Minister Vinay Kulkarni in Murder Case Sada Law • June 10, 2025 • Case law, Live cases • No Comments Supreme Court Judgment on Arbitration Appeals: Limits on Remand and Emphasis on Efficiency in Bombay Slum Redevelopment Case (2024) Supreme Court Judgment on Arbitration Appeals: Limits on Remand and Emphasis on Efficiency in Bombay Slum Redevelopment Case (2024) Sada Law • June 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments Supreme Court Affirms Divorced Muslim Women Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Despite 1986 Act Supreme Court Affirms Divorced Muslim Women Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CrPC Despite 1986 Act Sada Law • June 9, 2025 • Case law • No Comments 1 2 3 … 5 Next »

Supreme Court Landmark Alimony Verdict Redefines Dignity and Rights of Divorced Women in India Read More »

Get A Quote
Get A Quote