The Bombay High Court Ordered the Bar Council to investigate a lawyer who sought an adjournment on the day an order was to be delivered. The Court observed, “Conduct of the learned Advocate totally unacceptable,” indicating potential professional misconduct and emphasizing the importance of ethical responsibility in legal proceedings.
Today, On 9th April, A special court reserved its order until April 15 on the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) objection to a closure report filed in a case allegedly involving the Chief Minister. The ED opposed the closure, citing unresolved issues and pending evidence. The court heard detailed arguments from both sides. The final decision is now expected next week.
Today, On 8th April, In the MUDA scam case, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has opposed the ‘B report’ submitted by the Lokayukta police in the Special Court. The ED says that important information it gave was not included in the report. It has asked the court to review the report and allow more investigation. The case is about suspected wrongdoing in land allotments by the Mysuru Urban Development Authority (MUDA).
A Chandigarh court has acquitted former judge Justice Nirmal Yadav and three others in a 2008 corruption case. The verdict, delivered on Saturday, follows a lengthy investigation after cash was mistakenly delivered to another judge. The CBI initially filed a charge sheet in 2011, but all accused were found not guilty.
Madras: Today, 27th March, Prasanna Sankaranarayanan, co-founder of Rippling, has approached the Madras High Court alleging that the Tamil Nadu police have been harassing him due to false complaints filed by his estranged wife, Dhivya Sashidhar. He claimed that his wife has been using legal complaints as a means to take away their son and move him out of India amidst their ongoing divorce case.
NEW DELHI: Today, 26th March, The Delhi High Court decided to continue hearing the trademark case filed by Elon Musk’s company, Tesla Inc., against the Indian firm Tesla Power India Private Limited. This decision came after the Court noted that mediation efforts between the two companies did not succeed.
The Supreme Court of India ordered that 30% of positions in district bar associations across Karnataka be reserved for women lawyers, following previous directives for the Advocates Association Bengaluru. The Karnataka High Court also supported this initiative, emphasizing the importance of women’s representation in legal institutions and amending bylaws for permanent changes.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has ruled that if a High Court Bench hears a case that was not assigned to it by the Chief Justice of the High Court, its order will be considered void and without legal authority. The Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Rajesh Bindal stated that even if both parties agree to have their case heard by such a Bench, it does not grant the Bench the authority to decide the case.
Punjab: The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday (18th March) rejected a petition that challenged the requirement of minimum marks for selecting judges for the district judiciary. The petitioner had argued that there should be no mandatory minimum marks for judicial selections. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel ruled that setting a minimum marks requirement is necessary to maintain the quality of the judiciary.