In-depth analysis of landmark cases
The Central Information Commission holds that applicants cannot compel public authorities to provide copies of their own application forms under RTI Act, 2005, as such documents are not 'information' within Section 2(f).
Bombay High Court holds that dismissal of maintenance petition for non-service of summons cannot override prima facie evidence of marriage, especially when petitioner seeks restoration same day.
Bombay High Court clarifies that habeas corpus cannot be used to override civil custody orders; welfare of child demands detailed inquiry under Guardians and Wards Act.
NGT directs Madhya Pradesh to submit detailed report on utilization of Rs. 27 crore deposited for compensatory afforestation under Bharat Mala project, reinforcing statutory obligation to restore forest cover.
CIC holds that advocates cannot file RTI applications on behalf of clients, reinforcing personal information exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
Supreme Court holds that under pre-2015 Arbitration Act, Section 11 court's finding on arbitration agreement's existence is binding and cannot be reopened in Section 34 proceedings.
NGT holds that compensation for firecracker factory blast victims must follow Sarla Verma framework, with remaining dues to be paid promptly and disputes referable to civil courts.
Rajasthan High Court rules that anticipatory bail in cheque bounce cases under Section 138 NI Act requires prima facie evidence of dishonest intent at issuance, not just subsequent dishonour.
Chhattisgarh High Court holds that mere stock shortage under custom milling agreements does not constitute criminal offence without proof of fraudulent intent at time of misappropriation.
CIC holds that RTI applications seeking justification for administrative decisions fall outside Section 2(f) definition of 'information', reinforcing that RTI cannot be used for grievance redressal.
The Customs Tribunal holds that Section 28 demands are invalid unless assessment is final, overturning penalties for undervaluation where provisional clearance occurred.
Madhya Pradesh High Court holds that repeated Section 14 SARFAESI Act applications are lawful if justified, but remedies lie only before DRT under Section 17.
Andhra Pradesh High Court clarifies burden of proof in specific performance cases, emphasizing defendant's conduct and failure to challenge agreement promptly.
ITAT Ahmedabad holds that mere increase in cash deposit-to-turnover ratio during demonetization does not justify addition under Section 68 if books are maintained and sales are verified.
Andhra Pradesh High Court clarifies transfer jurisdiction under Section 447 BNSS, balancing judicial convenience with fair trial rights in domestic violence cases.