Blogs

Bills Replacing IPC, CrPC, Evidence Act May Take Time To Come Into Force; Requirement Of Section 41A Notices Non-negotiable: Supreme Court

 Awstika Das

The requirement of publishing serialised notices under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was non-negotiable, the Supreme Court said on Monday. 

Section 41A of the Code, which requires a person to be served with a notice by the police prior to their arrest for offences punishable with imprisonment for less than seven years, was introduced as a procedural safeguard against illegal arrest, with the objective of protecting the rights and interest of the arrestee.

In Independence Day Speech, Prime Minister Thanks Supreme Court For Making Judgments Available In Regional Languages

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

15 Aug 2023 10:51 AM

Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his Independence Day speech, thanked the Supreme Court for ensuring that the judgments are translated into regional languages.

"I thank the Supreme Court of India. The Supreme Court has said the operative part of the judgments will be made available in the language of the party who has come to the Court. The importance of mother tongue is increasing today," the PM said.

Highlights Of Bills Replacing IPC, CrPC & Evidence Act As Stated By

Union Home Minister

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

11 Aug 2023 2:19 PM

The Lok Sabha today referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee, three Bills that are aimed to replace the Indian Penal Code, the Criminal Code for Procedure and the Indian Evidence Act. For this purpose, Home Minister Amit Shah introduced Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023; and Bharatiya Sakshya Bill, 2023 respectively. The Bills have been framed...

Supreme Court Issues Notice On RBI Appeal Against Kerala HC Order That Lifted Loan Restrictions Imposed On Co-Operative Bank 

Sheryl Sebastian

28 July2023 9:49 PM

The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice to in an appeal filed by the Reserve Bank of India, against an order or Kerala High Courtthat lifted the loan restrictions imposed by it on Thiruvalla East Co-Operative Bank Ltd. The notice was issued by a division bench of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia. Attorney General for India R Venkataramani appeared for the RBI.

The Delhi High Court on Friday discharged 12 lawyers, including former Delhi High Court Bar Association President Rajiv Khosla and former Delhi Bar Association President Sanjeev Nasiar, in a suo motu criminal contempt case in connection with the violence at the Tis Hazari Court in 2006.

The Supreme Court observed that the courts should adopt the justice oriented approach rather than the 'iron-cast technical approach' while dealing with delay condonation applications.

In this case, the suit was decreed by the trial court on 1.10.2005. The defendants filed first appeal along with an application seeking to condone 52 days delay. The lower appellate Court on 08.10.2010 dismissed the appeal on the ground of limitation holding that the delay has not been properly explained.

The Delhi High Court has granted one last opportunity to Federation of Hotels and Restaurant Associations of India and National Restaurant Association of India for proper filing of their affidavits in compliance of an order in respect of levy of service charge by their members, subject to payment of Rs. 1 lakh each by both of them.

The Delhi High Court is set to examine a question as to whether the requirement of plurality of inventions in the parent patent application is necessary for a divisional application to be maintainable even where it is filed by the applicant suo moto and not on the basis of any objection raised by the Controller of Patents and Designs.

The Supreme Court observed that the merits of the evidence has to be appreciated only during trial and not at the stage of Section 319 CrPC.

In this case, an application under Section 319 CrPC was moved before the Trial Court and the same was allowed. Allowing the revision petition filed by the accused, the High Court set aside this order on a reasoning that he was found innocent during investigation and that he never used the gun and had actually fled from the spot.