Get latest updates on Indian Judiciary and LexisNexis in the fortnightly e-newsletter by Team LexisNexis India. We bring to you in detail the Landmark Judgements from the Supreme Court of India and respective High Courts; Legislations Updates on Central and State Acts; related Legal News and Articles; Upcoming Events and Press Releases by LexisNexis India and Universal Law Publishing and our Newly Released Titles. |
Issue 4 • February 2018 |
Lexis®India |
1.The Supreme Court of India, in International Asset Reconstruction Company of India Ltd. vs. Official Liquidator of Aldrich Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Others, has held that the prescribed period of 30 days under Section 30(1) of the RDB Act for preferring an appeal against the order of the Recovery officer therefore cannot be condoned by application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. [(2018) 1 MLJ 850 : LNIND 2017 SC 2815] Read more 2. The Supreme Court of India, in Parbatbhai Aahir @ Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another, has held that the High Court was eminently justified in declining to quash the FIR which had been registered under Sections 384, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506(2) of the Penal Code. [(2018) 1 MLJ (Crl) 262 : LNIND 2017 SC 470] Read more 3. The Madras High Court, in N. Palani vs. Engineer-in-Chief (WRD) and the Chief Engineer (General), Public Works Department, Chepauk, Chennai - 600 005 and Others, has found that representation for compassionate appointment was made belatedly and it does not fall within the period of three years after attaining majority. [2018-I-LLJ-404 (Mad) : LNIND 2017 MAD 3477] Read more Click here to register for Lexis®India Trial/Demo For training, write to online.in@lexisnexis.com |
Legal News |
(a) The Supreme Court of India has declared Pune Municipal Corporation & Anr. vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, LNIND 2014 SC 48, to be per incuriam. (b) The Supreme Court of India has set aside the Securities Appellate Tribunal order which held that only if there is market impact on account of sham transactions, could there be violation of the Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices Regulations. (c) The Rajasthan High Court has also observed that since admittedly ‘Maharani Padmavati’ was never considered to be a religious figure, manifestly, the offence under Section 295A IPC cannot be invoked by any stretch of imagination. (d) The Madras High Court has upheld the amendments prescribing 10 years of practice experience as minimum eligibility criteria to contest elections to the State Bar Council. |
Legislation Updates |
New Regulations:-
Amendments:-
|
Previous Newsletters |
Landmark Judgements |
Upcoming Events |
The Grand Masters 2018 – A Corporate Counsel Legal Best Practices Summit Series |
Legal Research Solutions Partner |
New Releases - Click here for All New Releases |
Pollock & Mulla's The Specific Relief Act, 1963 |
M P Jain's Indian Constitutional Law |
978-93-8651-504-9 8th Edition 2018 Price: INR 1595/- Paperback |
978-93-8651-501-8 15th Edition 2018 Price: INR 995/- Hardcover |
State Acts Update:-
|