Author Archives: advocatemmmohan

I. Whether the MCI is the competent authority/justified to issue direction disallowing the Appellant to make admissions in the NRI quota for three years? II. Whether the decision in PA Inamdar (supra) operates retrospectively with respect to the letter dated 08.02.2005? III. Whether the decision in PA Inamdar applies to Deemed Universities or only to private colleges?

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No…8381 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.21772 of 2012) MANIPAL UNIVERSITY & ANR. …. Appellant(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ….Respondent(s) J U D G M … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized

“seat of arbitration and venue of arbitration”

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 2841-2843 OF 2017 (@ S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 22616-22618 of 2016) Roger Shashoua & Others …Appellant(s) Versus Mukesh Sharma & Others …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized

criminal contempt, committed by Shri Justice C.S. Karnan.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION SUO-MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 1 OF 2017 IN THE MATTER OF: In Re, Hon’ble Shri Justice C.S. Karnan J U D G M E N T Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized

interpretation of Section 2(d) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short, “the POCSO Act”), and the primary argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the definition in Section 2(d) that defines “child” to mean any person below the age of 18 years, should engulf and embrace, in its connotative expanse, the “mental age” of a person or the age determined by the prevalent science pertaining to psychiatry so that a mentally retarded person or an extremely intellectually challenged person who even has crossed the biological age of 18 years can be included within the holistic conception of the term “child”.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1217­1219 OF 2017 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 2640­2642 of 2016] Ms. Eera                               … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized

Whether the petition and the affidavit signed by the Advocate and not by the party is valid ?

Whether the petition and the affidavit signed by the Advocate and not by the party is valid ? A.P. CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE CHAPTER-IV Affidavits (New) Interpretation of words:- The word ‘affidavit’ in this chapter shall include any document required … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized

“mental cruelty”= as admittedly both lived together till 2006 and the appellant gave birth to their second daughter in 2006. Third, most of the incidents of alleged cruelty pertained to the period prior to 2006 and some were alleged to have occurred after 2006. Those pertained to period after 2006 were founded on general allegations with no details pleaded such as when such incident occurred (year, month, date etc.), what was its background, who witnessed, what the appellant actually said etc.- In our view, the incidents which occurred prior to 2006 could not be relied on to prove the instances of cruelty because they were deemed to have been condoned by the acts of the parties. So far as the instances alleged after 2006 were concerned, they being isolated instances, did not constitute an act of cruelty. A petition seeking divorce on some isolated incidents alleged to have occurred 8-10 years prior to filing of the date of petition cannot furnish a subsisting cause of action to seek divorce after 10 years or so of occurrence of such incidents. The incidents alleged should be of recurring nature or continuing one and they should be in near proximity with the filing of the petition. Few isolated incidents of long past and that too found to have been condoned due to compromising behavior of the parties cannot constitute an act of cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 (1)(ia)of the Act.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7114-7115 OF 2014   Suman Singh ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Sanjay Singh …Respondent(s)   J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1) These appeals are … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized

declare the action of the respondents, in compelling Cable T.V. subscribers to purchase set top boxes (STB for short) and in threatening cable operators not to carry on the existing analog form of transmission with effect from the dates mentioned in the notification, as unlawful and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and to consequently direct the respondents not to stop transmission of T.V. channel signals in analog form, and to implement the digital addressable system transmission along with analog form.= Viewed from any angle, the impugned notice issued by the Government of India dated 22.12.2016, prohibiting transmission of signals in an analog form in phase III areas beyond the sunset date of 31.01.2017, does not fall foul of Section 4-A(1) of the 1995 Act as amended by Act 21 of 2011.

2017 AP HIGH COURT – http://judis.nic.in/Judis_Andhra/list_new2.asp?FileName=14107 HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND HONBLEDr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER WP.PIL 6 OF 2017 01-06-2017 Citizens Welfare Society.Petitioner Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Shastry Bhavan, … Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized