Penal Provisions Of Aadhaar Act Can't Be Applied Retrospectively In Absence Of Express Provision Due To Bar Under Article 20(1): Calcutta HC

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justice Uday Kumar has held that a close reading of the Aadhaar Act, 2016, reveals no provision allowing retrospective application. When there is no provision expressly making the Act retrospective in nature, applying it to the acts committed before the Act came into force would violate Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution. The State's reliance on the detection in 2016 that is after the Act came into force of the alleged offence is misplaced, as the relevant...

Mere Passage Of Time Does Not Bar Arbitration If Arbitration Clause Remains Valid & Enforceable: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court bench of Justice K Lakshman has held that mere passage of time does not bar arbitration if the arbitration clause remains valid. The Limitation for the purpose of filing the application under section 11(6) of the Arbitration Act commences from the date when request for initiating arbitration is rejected. Brief Facts: This application has been filed...

Madras High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 9 - June 15, 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 192 To 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 200 NOMINAL INDEX Lyca Productions Private Limited v Vishal Krishna Reddy, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 192 A Shankar @ Savukku Shankar v. The Director, CBI, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 193 V Easwaran v. Government of Tamil Nadu, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 194 G Devarajan V The Special Tahsildar and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 195 Karthik...

Mere Medical Evidence Of Sexual Intercourse Insufficient To Convict For Rape, Direct Evidence Must Connect Accused To Act: J&K High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that mere medical evidence confirming sexual intercourse is insufficient to establish guilt under the POCSO Act or rape charges. There must be direct or circumstantial evidence connecting the accused to the act, observed Justice Sanjay Dhar while quashing charges against one Basit Bashir, accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting two...

Inconsequential Errors Cannot Be Grounds To Challenge Judicious & Reasoned Award U/S 34 Of Arbitration Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court Bench of Justice Manoj Kunar Ohri has held that the petitioner cannot take advantage of apparent inconsequential errors and fumbles to challenge the award. Inconsequential errors in the award cannot be a ground to challenge otherwise judicious and reasoned award. Brief Facts of the case: The respondent accepted an offer letter to procure a machine...

Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: May 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 161 To 2024 194 LiveLaw (Raj) 194NOMINAL INDEXAmit v Shri Ganesh Raj Bansal & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 161Shubham Rewad & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 162Victim v State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 163Giriraj Prasad Sharma v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 164Vinod Shaily & Anr....

Cannot Withold Retirement Benefits For Crime Branch Clearance: J&K HC

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh: A single judge bench of Justice Rajesh Sekhri held that retirement benefits could not be withheld merely on the grounds of pending clearance from crime branch, especially when the FIR has been closed as 'not proved'. The court ruled that even when if the FIR investigations were pending, it does not amount to 'judicial proceedings', and thus,...

Trademark Infringement | Jeopardisation Of IPO Due To Interim Injunction Not Grounds To It Set Aside: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that an entity cannot seek to set aside an interim injunction passed against it in a trademark infringement suit, merely because its business or IPO launch is jeopardized due to such injunction.A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held,“In the present case, while the Appellant has strenuously contended that...

Dispute Review Board's Recommendations Are Arbitral Awards, Enforceable U/S 36 Of A&C Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court bench of Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice Tejas Karia has held that the recommendations of the Dispute Review Board (DRB) rendered under a contract constitute an arbitral award which is enforceable as a decree under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The court further held that the limitation for enforcement begins from the date of the award,...

Daily-Rated And Casual Workers Must Be Counted While Determining Gratuity Act Applicability: Calcutta HC

Calcutta High Court: A single judge bench consisting of Justice Shampa Dutt (Paul) allowed the grant of gratuity to a former employee of Midnapur District Service-cum-Marketing & Industrial Cooperative Union Ltd. The court held that the union came within the scope of Section 1(3)(c) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. The court held that denying these dues after 34 years of...

Arbitration Clause Mandates Reference, Question Of Appropriateness Can't Be Considered U/S 8 Of A&C Act: Calcutta High Court

The Calcutta High Court bench of Justices Arijit Banerjee and Rai Chattopadhyay has held that where an agreement between the parties contains a clear arbitration clause and disputes arise under that agreement, the Trial Court is bound to refer the parties to arbitration. The question of whether such reference is appropriate or not does not arise, as Section 8(1) of the Arbitration...

'Sad, Shocking State Of Affairs': Delhi High Court Orders MP Govt To Release Retiral Benefits Of Deceased IAS Officer

The Delhi High Court recently expressed shock at the conduct of Madhya Pradesh government in “victimising” a deceased IAS cadre officer by withholding his retiral benefits of almost 7 years.A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Renu Bhatnagar observed that the officer was first victimized back in the year 2000, when he was misallocated Chhattisgarh cadre upon reorganization...