A panel of Judges consisting of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal presided over a special leave petition case, which challenged a Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench’s unfavorable ruling. The ruling had been prompted by the absence of lawyers due to a strike. Earlier,
The High Court has made an unusual observation, suggesting that the Investigating Officer should allow the appellant to clarify the evidence collected against them during the investigative process before the submission of the final report under Section 173 of the CrPC. To say the least,
Section 15 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860 on Text: Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes
Section 14 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860 on Text: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake
Section 13 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860 on Text: Whoever, having been convicted by a Court in India, of an offence punishable under Chapters X or Chapter XVII of this Sanhita with imprisonment of either description for
Section 12 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860 on Text: In executing a sentence of solitary confinement, such confinement shall in no case exceed fourteen days at a time, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of
Section 11 of Bhartiya Nyay Sanhita as compared to same provision in IPC Act 1860 on Text: Whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which under this Sanhita the Court has power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment, the Court may, by its
The Delhi GST department has taken the cognisance at many issues related to the notices in GST. The notices were issued in cases where the adjudication was already done via scrutiny or Audit. The department has asked to withdraw the notices in these cases. Also
Thus, as already stated supra, the notice calling forth the petitioner’s reply to be filed within a limited time cannot be deemed to a notice affording fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Had it been the real intention of the respondent Department to provide
The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has informed the Supreme Court that, following deactivation due to non-usage or at the subscriber’s request, a cellular mobile phone number remains unallocated to a new subscriber for a minimum period of 90 days. WhatsApp also conveyed to
