Application of Sections 143A and 148, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881- Whether prospective or retrospective?

Much debate surrounds the application of Sections 143A and 148 introduced in the NI Act by way of amendment in 2018. The debate aims to answer the question whether the application of the two provisions is retrospective or prospective? Let’s analyse.

Rafale judgment and the saga of errors!

Heard of the controversy surrounding the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Rafale case? Of course, you have! But do you know the real deal? Let’s find out…

Suit for mandatory injunction vis-a-vis suit for possession with reference to court-fee.

It has often been seen that a suit for mandatory injunction is filed in trial courts in India praying relief of eviction of the defendant and handing over of possession to plaintiff instead of a suit for possession. The difference between the two is crucial to be understood as there is a massive difference in the court fees payable in case of the two suits. Let’s check it out.

Can civil and criminal cases initiated on the same cause go on simultaneously?

It’s generally seen that few lawyers subscribe to the myth of stay of civil case during pendency of a criminal case instituted on the same cause. However, this is wholly far from truth.

Part rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC- whether allowed?

 

Short answer is NO. Plaint can only be rejected in full i.e. in entirety.

Sexual Harassment at Workplace Act, 2013- point-wise summary.

Here is a summary of the Act aimed at prevention and redressal of sexual harassment of women at workplaces. The summary covers all important provisions of the Act and provides a quick, lucid summary of the Act.

Can accused be compelled to take potency test in criminal cases?

 

The answer is IT DEPENDS! If the potency test’s result will, solely by itself, incriminate the accused, then it cannot be allowed. Therefore, what is to be seen is whether the potency or otherwise of accused is itself in issue in a given case.

Does the Government have right/duty to protect religious structures?

There, unfortunately, is no consistency in this regard (as in most other cases) in judgments of the Supreme Court. A recent judgment of the Supreme Court holds that State has the duty to protect religious structures. However, the said judgment overlooks previous judgments holding otherwise.

Personal attendance of respondent in domestic violence cases- not necessary.

 

Courts cannot direct personal presence of respondents (except when absolutely necessary) in proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The proceedings are civil in nature and only tried by a criminal court.