Important Judgments • November 2017

  1. The Supreme Court of India, in Adiveppa and Others vs. Bhimappa and Another, has held that it was obligatory upon the Plaintiffs to have proved that despite existence of jointness in the family, properties described in Schedule ‘B’ and ‘C’ was not part of ancestral properties but were their self-acquired properties. [(2017) 7 MLJ 492 : LNIND 2017 SC 454]Read more
  2. The Supreme Court of India, in Monica Kumar and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, has directed 1st Respondent to provide an adequate protection to the Petitioners after assessing the situation and to ensure that Petitioners are not harassed or threatened by the Police Officials in any manner. [(2017) 4 MLJ (Crl) 171 : LNIND 2017 SC 382]Read more
  3. The Madras High Court, in Murugasamy vs. State, rep by Inspector of Police, Karumathampatty Police Station, Coimbatore District and Another, has directed the Government of Tamil Nadu to construct special rooms for conduct of Test Identification Parades in all the prisons in the State within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. [(2017) 4 MLJ (Crl) 129 : LNINDORD 2017 MAD 5249]Read more
  4. The Madras High Court, in Dr. K.R. Ramaswamy alias Traffic Ramaswamy, Social Activist/Senior Citizen and Another vs. Chief Secretary, Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9 and Others, has held that the holding of public worship, be it Vinayagar worship or any other worship, in the city of Chennai contemplates permission of the Chennai City Municipal Corporation and permission of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai. [(2017) 7 MLJ 257 : LNINDORD 2017 MAD 4287] Read more
  5. The Supreme Court of India, in Raptakos, Brett and Co. Ltd. vs. Ganesh Property, has held that  the possession of the Appellant-Company for the period under consideration, pursuant to orders passed by the High Court and this Court, cannot in any view be considered as illegal or unauthorized or that of a trespasser. [(2017) 7 MLJ 861 : LNIND 2017 SC 457]Read more
  6. The Supreme Court of India, in Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit vs. State of Maharashtra, has held that though an accused has a right to make successive applications for grant of bail, the Court entertaining such subsequent bail applications has a duty to consider the reasons and grounds on which the earlier bail applications were rejected. [(2017) 4 MLJ (Crl) 372 : LNIND 2017 SC 410]Read more
  7. The Madras High Court, in Ishta Capital Private Limited, rep. by its Director Arun Jayatharan vs. Aravandrud Capital, rep. by its Chief Executive Office Arvind Raghunathan, has held that mere use of the word arbitration in the heading in the clause will not make it an arbitration clause. [(2017) 7 MLJ 895 :  LNINDORD 2017 MAD 7236]Read more
  8. The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, in Kali @ Kalidoss @ Kalirajan vs. State, rep by its, The Inspector of Police, Kezhavalavu Police Station, Keezhavalavu, Madurai District, Crime No. 196 of 2011, has held that schizophrenia cannot be developed in a single day to contend that on the date of occurrence, the accused was alright. [(2017) 4 MLJ (Crl) 257 : LNIND 2017 BMM 1116] Read more

For more important legal judgments, Click Here

Click here to register for Lexis®India Trial/Demo

For training, write to online.in@lexisnexis.com

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: