Author: LawMantra Admin

Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India Name of the Judges: Justice Deepak Verma, Justice K.S. Radhakrishnan Date of Judgment: 9 June 2010 Facts of the Case: The appellant herein Smt. Shakuntala had been promoted to the post of Inspector with Read More …

Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India Name of the Judges: Justice B.S. Chauhan, Justice Swatanter Kumar Date of Judgement: 3 June 2010 Facts of the Case: This was a unique case which revealed that an influential person can have allotment Read More …

Mr. D. V. Sadananda Gowda, Union Law Minister has complaint to Justice G. Rohini, Delhi High Court Chief Justice to look into the matter of “corruption, favouritism and nepotism” in the Delhi Judicial Services Examination. The preliminary exam was conducted on Read More …

The AAP government has now filed an interim application with the High Court of Delhi for the appointment of Joint Commissioner of Police Mukesh Kumar Meena as Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) chief. This move by the LG of the national capital Read More …

While in India we still struggle with legislations like Section 377 of the IPC, the United States Supreme Court writes history with a ruling that has decided many wide spread ugly legal battles around the country once and for all. Read More …

FACTS: A notification under Section 30 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 was issued by Election Commission for holding elections to constitute 13th Legislative Assembly for the State of Rajasthan including the election scheduled for Nathdwara Legislative Assembly No. Read More …

The High Court of Bombay has given time of four weeks to the Maharashtra govt. so as to submit its reply to the petitions opposing provisions of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act, which proscribes  transportation, possession and consumption of meat Read More …

FACTS A company by the name of Dale and Carrington Investments Private Limited was incorporated for the hotel business. Ramanujam (appellant) was shown as the promoter of the company and was to get a salary for looking after the business. Read More …

Two parties entered into an Agreement at Calcutta for supply of chemicals manufactured by the Respondent to the Petitioner. In continuation of the aforesaid Agreement, the parties arrived at a Mutual Understanding whereby the Respondent would adjust the advance lying Read More …

This judgment, delivered by the two learned judges of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, R.F Nariman J. and Chelameswar J. is mainly a landmark because of the procedural obligations it has placed over the judiciary and the government of India regarding Read More …