The Supreme Court has referred the question of enhancing compensation under conventional heads to a Larger Bench, expressing doubt whether the 10 percent triennial increase fixed in Pranay Sethi should apply retrospectively to pre-2017 accidents, motor accident claims nationwide.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India on wednesday, set aside the conviction of three men who were declared guilty by the Punjab & Haryana High Court almost 20 years after they were acquitted by the trial court in a murder case. A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan expressed deep concerns about the standards of Public Prosecutors in High Courts. The Court criticized the way in which the Punjab & Haryana High Court overturned the acquittal based on the Public Prosecutor’s arguments.
![[Breaking]‘Ignores Macro-Economic Impact’: Centre Seeks Review of Supreme Court’s 8:1 Ruling Upholding Power of States to Tax Minerals](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Mineral-Royalty-Case.jpg?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Government has requested the Supreme Court to reconsider its ruling allowing states to tax mineral extraction, citing potential economic strain and undue burden on citizens. It argues for a uniform national system of mineral levies to ensure sustained economic growth and harmonized pricing. The plea highlights the impact on industrial growth and national development.
Today(on 23rd August),The Government of India informed the Supreme Court that Section 479 of the BNSS-2023, which limits the detention period for undertrial prisoners, will be applied retrospectively across the country. This could significantly affect the handling of undertrials, regardless of when their cases were registered.
Today (9th April): The Gujarat High Court upheld the Constitutional Validity of the Gujarat Land Grabbing (Prohibition) Act, 2020, and its associated rules. Over 150 petitions challenging the law’s validity were dismissed, as the Court found the Act to align with constitutional provisions, not contradict central laws, and not violate the basic structure of the Constitution.
The Karnataka High Court dismissed SFIO’s case against Vijay Mallya and Captain R. Gopinath, citing lack of jurisdiction under the Companies Act, 2013 to retrospectively apply to offenses under the Companies Act, 1956. The court emphasized proper approval of the merger, preventing fraud allegations from being revisited through criminal prosecution.