To maintain a claim for adverse possession by lapse of time of the land belonging to the government, the claimants to prove their possession to be openly hostile to the rights of the government. Supreme Court allows the claim of the State as the claimant failed to prove clear, continuous and hostile possession by way of cogent evidence and for non-demonstration of animus possidendi. Government of Kerala v. Joseph and Others Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka & Hon’ble Justice Sanjay ...

No writ would be maintainable when there is no express challenge to a remand order passed in exercise of a judicial function by a Magistrate. — Supreme Court Senthil Balaji v. State Represented By Deputy Director Hon’ble Justice A.S. Bopanna & Hon’ble Justice M. M. Sundresh Decided on 7th August, 2023 For full textclick here

[Day 4] Article 370 Abrogation Live watch Supreme Court proceedings at: "Click Here"

High Court in the criminal petition filed under Section 482 of the CrPC could not reverse the findings recorded by the Special Court with regard to the validity of sanction, ignoring the bar contained in PC Act. –– Supreme Court The Court held so as in the present case High Court have discharged the respondent-accused from the charges levelled against him for the offences under Section 13(1)(e) punishable under Section 13(2) of the PC Act, despite the fact that the accused had not ...

If the accused was already shown to the witnesses in the Police Station, sanctity of TIP is doubtful; Identification in the dock insufficient to hold they have been duly identified by the witnesses. Supreme Court acquits the life convicts for want of sufficient evidence. Kamal v. State (NCT of Delhi) Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra Decided on 7th August, 2023 For full textclick here