On September 3, a coordinate Bench had asked the respondents to file their reply affidavits. It was also expected to exercise restraint in regard to reporting of investigation in a manner that could hamper or prejudice the ongoing investigation...: Court records
Liberty granted to file an additional affidavit to bring on record subsequent events by tomorrow.
Notice issued to added respondents returnable on October 8. All respondents may file their reply affidavits by Sept 30, rejoinder thereto may be filed after
#BombayHighCourt: Pendency of these petitions shall not preclude the News Broadcasting Standards Authority to consider complaints that have been received by it and to take appropriate action thereon in accordance with law.
#BombayHighCourt adds: We hope and trust that the spirit of the order dated September 3 (to exercise restraint in media reporting in the #SSR case) may be carried out by the media organisations.
Supreme Court to shortly hear petitions raising objections to the SIR exercise ahead of the upcoming assembly elections in Bihar #BiharSIR2025 #BiharElections @ECISVEEP #SupremeCourt
Bihar voter list revision: ECI tells Supreme Court no deletion without prior notice, hearing
An affidavit by ECI stated these safeguards are further reinforced by a robust two-tier appeal mechanism ensuring that every elector has adequate recourse against any adverse action.
Supreme Court hears Indian Medical Association’s petition on alleged misleading statements and advertisements targeting the practice of allopathic medicine.
Bench: Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice KV Viswanathan.
#SupremeCourt #Misleadingmedicalads
Justice Nagarathna: all the reliefs sought in the prayers have already been achieved. We should close this now.
Amicus Curiae Sr. Adv. Shadan Farasat: the status quo may be maintained.
Justice Nagarathna: Court cannot legislate neither can it revive an omission.
Counsel: in ayurveda you can come up and say this is the cure of this disease, people will be lured. And the disease will be in curable by the time they will approach the allopathic doctor.
Justice Nagarathna: so long as they are permitted to manufacture and they manufacture it afterwards we can’t say don’t…
Supreme Court hears a plea concerning pollution from the massive discharge of untreated effluents by tanneries into the Palar River in Vellore District, Tamil Nadu.
Bench: Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan
In the last hearing, Court issued slew of directions, notably ordering compensation to affected families, recoverable from the polluting industries under the “polluter pays” principle.
The Court also ordered the constitution of an expert panel to assess and audit ecological damage and recommend remedial measures.
The Supreme Court will shortly continue hearing the appeals concerning JSW Steel’s ₹19,700 crore resolution plan for Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (BPSL).
SG Tushar Mehta hands over a note on EBITDA to the court.
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul begins his arguments.
Delhi High Court directs Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register complaint on the basis of its preliminary inquiry into allegations of inmates and jail authorities running an extortion racket and other criminal activities at Tihar Jail.
The Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela today heard the matter.
Court - The preliminary enquiry report shows involvement of the inmates and jail officials in various kinds of illegal and corrupt practices going on in the jail.
Supreme Court resumes hearing the cash-for-jobs scam case involving ex-TN minister Senthil Balaji.
Bench: Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi
#SupremeCourt #SenthilBalaji #cashforjobscam
On the last hearing the Court had pulled up the State government for naming more than 2000 individuals as accused remarking that a “cricket stadium” would be required to conduct trial.
Sr. Adv. Kapil Sibal (for Balaji): these are 3 applications.
Justice Kant: after 2 years you’re filing applications.
Sibal: without notice they have filed counters in 25.2. All that I want is in the first application the matter may be decided by the trial court without being influenced by the observations. I want a caveat. That’s all I want.