Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Calcutta High Court emphasised that the purpose of the preliminary inquiry is not to determine guilt or innocence but to decide whether an inquiry is expedient in the interest of justice.
“Sexual harassment in any form at the workplace must be viewed seriously and the harasser should not be allowed to escape from the clutches of law.”
It is almost 73 years since the Constitution of India started governing this country and the harsh reality is that the Executive has almost lost its independence and it has virtually turned into an organ merely executing whatever is said/dictated/ordered by the political party, which is in power during the relevant point of time.
The Delhi High Court held that the Delhi Technological University had been lenient in imposing Category IV punishment rather than rusticating the students who were found cheating in the examinations. Therefore, the court observed that the students who engage in unfair means in exams and get away with it cannot build the nation.
The Delhi High Court had initiated criminal contempt proceedings against defendants in a suit after the Registrar (Vigilance)’s inquiry revealed that the defendants placed a fabricated Intellectual Property Appellate Board’s Order on record.
In a case where a physics teacher was accused of sexual harassment and molestation of a minor girl, the Delhi High Court held that in dealing with such matters, paramount consideration must be given to the well-being of the child whose mental psyche was vulnerable, impressionable and in a developing stage.
Bombay High Court: In a case filed by a father (‘petitioner’) seeking for setting aside the order passed by the Juvenile Justice
Gauhati High Court:In a case relating to suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) against the police atrocities, which took place at Paltan
by Jeevan Ballav Panda†, Meher Tandon††, and Dhriti Mehta†††
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 44
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Vivek Agarwal, J., took up a bail application moved by the Applicant accused for offences punishable under Sections
Bombay High Court at Goa: A Division Bench of Revati Mohite Dere and M.S. Jawalkar, JJ. rejected Tarun Tejpal’s plea to conduct
Delhi High Court: Noting allegations against an employer with regard to the sexual harassment Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., expressed that, “…instead of providing
Securities Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai (SAT): The Coram of Justice Tarun Agarwala, (Presiding Officer) and Justice M.T. Joshi (Judicial Member), while dismissing the
Jharkhand High Court: Deepak Roshan, J., while allowing the present writ application, said, “This court is having no hesitation to hold that
Karnataka High Court: Krishna S. Dixit, J. allowed the writ petition in part by quashing the previous order by the Joint Registrar
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Gurvinder Singh Gill, J., disposed of the petition directing the respondents to issue written advance notice to
Allahabad High Court: Dinesh Kumar Singh, J. disposed of the petition on the ground that no substantial ground was made for exercising
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Sunil Gaur, J., disposed of a writ petition before it. The petitioner, an