It focuses on the quashing of criminal proceedings against the appellant. The case originated from an accusation that an educational society, run by the appellant, submitted a forged no-objection certificate (NOC) from the Fire Department to obtain institutional recognition. However, the Court found that an NOC was not required for buildings under 15 meters, and the appellant's building was 14.20 meters, meaning the alleged false representation did not induce the Education Department. Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the criminal proceedings for cheating and forgery were quashed as essential ingredients of these offenses, such as dishonest inducement or the making of the forged document, were not met.

Unravel why the Supreme Court stressed mandatory FIR registration under Section 154 CrPC, even against top investigative officers. The judgment boldly asserts: justice demands not only investigating citizens, but sometimes those who investigate must also be investigated! A reminder that preliminary inquiry is not a shield—when a cognizable offence appears, the law must take its course. #CrPC #SupremeCourt #Section154CrPC #CriminalLaw #FIR

The Supreme Court spotlighted the importance of judicial restraint when making adverse remarks against advocates. The judgment underlines that observations casting aspersions on a lawyer’s conduct must be avoided unless absolutely warranted. This upholds the dignity of legal professionals and protects their reputation under core principles of professional ethics. #SupremeCourt #AdvocacyMatters #ProfessionalConduct

The Supreme Court’s judgment centers on the crucial test for landlord-tenant disputes under Section 43 and Section 3(e) of the Karnataka Rent Act, 1999, stressing that valid rent receipts serve as definitive proof of relationship—regardless of title claims. Today’s audio explores how the Court restored eviction based strictly on these statutory requirements, reshaping how practical evidence prevails in rental matters. #SupremeCourt #Rent Act #LandlordTenantDisputes

The Court clarified that reserved category candidates (like OBC) who avail age relaxation cannot claim unreserved/general seats if the recruitment rules specifically bar such migration, even if they score higher than the last general category candidate. The Court relied on Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 and distinguished earlier judgments, reaffirming that statutory embargo in notification prevails over general merit principles. #ReservationLaw #OBC #SupremeCourt #Article14

This case examines what truly amounts to "abetment of suicide" under Section 306 IPC. The Court emphasized that ordinary neighborhood quarrels and casual insults, even if persistent, do not automatically prove criminal instigation unless it is shown that the accused’s conduct left the victim with no option but to end their life. This landmark judgment clarifies the legal threshold for Section 306 and the necessity of proving intent and direct encouragement as per Section 107 IPC. #Section306IPC #CriminalLaw #SupremeCourt

The Supreme Court redefined the scope of medical negligence under consumer law. The Court emphasized that liability must be based strictly on the pleadings and recognized the high threshold for establishing medical negligence, stating that negative outcomes alone do not amount to negligence without strong evidence. It highlighted Torts principles and cited Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, stressing that courts cannot substitute medical expertise with their own views. #MedicalNegligence #SupremeCourt #ConsumerLaw

The Supreme Court delivered a powerful message for homebuyers’ rights. Listen to how the Court protected allottees under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, clarifying the crucial difference between verified and belated claims. By insisting that verified homebuyer claims be honored under Clause 18.4(ii) and (vi)(a), the judgment sets a precedent for ensuring rightful possession over mere refunds. #SupremeCourt #IBC #HomeBuyerRights

This judgment clarifies the limits of review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC, reminding us that review is not an appeal in disguise. The Court emphasized that review powers exist only to correct manifest errors, not to reconsider facts already settled. #CoparcenaryRiights #ReviewJurisdiction #CPC #PartitionLaw #SupremeCourt

This judgement outlines an appeal regarding a widowed daughter-in-law's right to maintenance from her deceased father-in-law's estate under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (HAMA). The appellant, Geeta Sharma, challenged a Family Court's decision that her petition was non-maintainable. The High Court of Delhi examined various sections of HAMA, including Section 19 (Maintenance of widowed daughter-in-law) and Section 21 (Dependants defined), to determine if a widowed daughter-in-law whose father-in-law pre-deceased her husband is entitled to maintenance from the coparcenary property of the father-in-law's estate. The court ultimately set aside the impugned order, directing the Family Court to expeditiously dispose of the application, emphasizing a broad interpretation of HAMA as a social welfare legislation.