![[BREAKING] Krishna Janmabhoomi Case |Supreme Court Says Plea on 15 Lawsuits Consolidation Can Be Raised Later](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Mathura-Temple.webp?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Supreme Court of India reviewed a plea regarding the consolidation of 15 lawsuits related to the Mathura Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Idgah Masjid dispute, initially ordered by the Allahabad High Court. The Supreme Court supported this consolidation as it serves the interests of justice and stated the plea could be raised later.
Today, On 6th November, the Supreme Court directed the Ajit Pawar-led NCP to publish a disclaimer about the ‘clock symbol’ dispute within 24 to 36 hours, clarifying its legal status. This follows an ongoing legal challenge by Sharad Pawar’s faction regarding symbol usage after the NCP split and Election Commission decisions.
![[AgustaWestland Chopper Scam] Delhi HC Denies Bail to Christian Michel James in Rs 3,600-Crore CBI Case](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image-369.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
![[Sena vs Sena] ECI Seeks Release of EVMs Stuck in Legal Dispute Between Rajan Vichare and Naresh Mhaske After Lok Sabha Election](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/image-78.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
X Corp (formerly Twitter) has approached the Delhi High Court, asserting that a video allegedly showing journalist Rajat Sharma using foul language against Congress spokesperson Ragini Nayak is neither fake nor edited. They seek to vacate an interim order directing the removal of the video from their platform and accounts of Congress leaders.
![[Swiggy vs. CCI] Karnataka HC Uncertain on Swiggy's Plea Against CCI Order](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/MicrosoftTeams-image-122.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Karnataka High Court on 23rd May, expressed uncertainty about its jurisdiction over Swiggy’s plea against a Competition Commission of India (CCI) directive. The court questioned if any part of the case’s cause of action took place in Karnataka, requesting additional clarity from Swiggy. The dispute centers on sharing confidential information with the CCI during an anti-competitive practice probe.
During a Supreme Court hearing, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi humorously declined to offer solicitor general Tushar Mehta an internship under him. The hearing involved an original suit by the West Bengal government against the Centre concerning CBI investigations without state consent. Solicitor General Mehta emphasized the importance of Article 131, stating that the CBI operates independently from the Union of India.
![[Nithari Killings Case]| Supreme Court to Hear Plea Against Acquittal](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/image-43-1.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
Today, 1st May, The Supreme Court will hear West Bengal’s challenge against CBI investigations, addressing the issue of private properties as “material resources of the community.” The case may shape future legal precedents and raises questions about the CBI’s authority. Scheduling conflicts have led to the hearing being rescheduled for Thursday before the summer recess.
Jai Anant Dehadrai withdrew his defamation case against Mahua Moitra in the Delhi High Court after she labeled him “jobless” and “jilted.” Dehadrai’s counsel expressed willingness to drop the suit if Moitra refrained from making false statements about him. With Moitra’s counsel seeking instructions, Dehadrai unconditionally withdrew the suit, which was accepted by the court.