Case : Central Bank of India & Anr. Vs Smt. Prabha Jain & Ors.
Bench :Justices J. B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan
Issue :
Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC if one of the reliefs sought is barred by law, while other reliefs remain within the jurisdiction of the Civil Court.
The Court concluded that the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 cannot be based solely on the fact that one of the reliefs sought is barred by law if other reliefs survive and fall within the jurisdiction of the court.
Case : Virendra Singh Nagar vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice N.K. Singh
The Background of the case was as follows :
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition filed by a Law Adviser and Legal Officer of the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) seeking anticipatory bail in a corruption case.
The case involved allegations that exorbitant compensation was paid to certain landowners for land acquisition, exceeding their legal entitlement.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for a thorough and impartial investigation into the allegations of corruption within NOIDA and the payment of excessive compensation to landowners. The SIT was tasked with ensuring transparency and accountability while addressing concerns of public interest.
Case :Ashwini Upadhyay vs Union of India
Bench: Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar
The Supreme Court refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay challenging the provisions of the Income Tax Act that impose an obligation on private employers to deduct tax at source (TDS) on salaries.
The PIL argued that the TDS provisions burden private employers with tax collection duties without remuneration and impose severe penalties for non-compliance. It claimed this violates Article 23 (prohibition of forced labor) and Article 14 (equality before the law) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court dismissed the PIL, granting liberty to the petitioner to raise the matter before the High Court.
Case: Bar Council of India vs Poonam Ashok Goud
Bench : CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justices Sanjay Kumar and K. V. Viswanathan
The Supreme Court, on January 24, expressed serious concern over delays in the verification of advocates’ law degrees and enrolment by Bar Councils. A bench comprising the above emphasized the need to expedite the process and set a timeline for completion.
Senior Advocate R. Balasubramanian, representing the Bar Council of India (BCI), informed the Court that the state-wise verification process was causing delays. Acknowledging this, the bench directed the BCI to submit an updated status report within eight weeks.
#judiciaryservices #important #live #latestnews #latest #latestupdate #judiciary #lawyer #judge #judgement #publicinterest #plaint #corruptionallegations #lawdegree
.
Watch Trending Video 👇🏼
🤩 Quick revision of previous year questions from the Preamble
th-cam.com/users/liveMbWl8H7-hiQ?si=sx8U6ogbGoGaEcgH
🤩 Notable Judgements by Former CJI Dr. D. Y. Chandrachud
th-cam.com/video/wwancgxsNLQ/w-d-xo.html
🤩 Clear U.P. Judiciary in 1st Attempt!!!!
th-cam.com/video/CD42DvdfHoY/w-d-xo.html
🤩 Previous Year Question | Fundamental Rights| Constitutional Law
th-cam.com/video/v5wN5-xro9c/w-d-xo.html
If you like our video, please give us feedback and also like, share & subscribe our channel. 👇🏼
🔹 TH-cam : bit.ly/lawUT
🔹 Facebook : profile.php?id=61557741822478&mibextid=ZbWKwL
🔹 Instagram : dhyeyalawlucknow?igsh=MWU0eXVpZXFuODM2Mw%3D%3D
🔹 Website :
bit.ly/lawWE
Our Contact Details 👇🏼
📱 : +91 9319991061 l +91 7800001572
📧 : dhyeyalaw7@gmail.com
🗺️ : A-12, Sector j Road, Aliganj, Lucknow, Uttar pradesh 226024