Significance of Basant Panchami (Saraswati Puja) - India Parenting
https://www.indiaparenting.com/saraswati-puja-significance-and-how-the-puja-is-performed.html
https://www.indiaparenting.com/saraswati-puja-significance-and-how-the-puja-is-performed.html
Indiaparenting.com
Significance of Basant Panchami (Saraswati Puja)
The festival of Saraswati Puja is popular in Bengal. This day is also observed as Vansant Panchami or Basant Panchami in other regions of India. Learn about significance of this festival and rituals followed while doing Saraswati Puja.
π8π3
Good Book π
Contains Articles on legal History till AI and Chatbot in Judiciary.
Random Journals π
Will share some Fundamental Topics with you.
@CurrentLegalGK
Contains Articles on legal History till AI and Chatbot in Judiciary.
Random Journals π
Will share some Fundamental Topics with you.
@CurrentLegalGK
π8π7π2
Case brief on Electoral Bonds Judgment soon.Important for CLAT PG & Law Clerk in Detail
@CurrentLegalGK
π8
Lawyer Assisting A Sovereign Function, Can't Be Brought Under Consumer Protection Act : Argument Before Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/lawyer-assisting-a-sovereign-function-cant-be-brought-under-consumer-protection-act-argument-before-supreme-court-249606
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/lawyer-assisting-a-sovereign-function-cant-be-brought-under-consumer-protection-act-argument-before-supreme-court-249606
www.livelaw.in
Lawyer Assisting A Sovereign Function, Can't Be Brought Under Consumer Protection Act : Argument Before Supreme Court
Today, the Supreme Court resumed its hearing on the crucial point of whether services rendered by the lawyer would come within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986. The issue,...
π‘πββοΈ
βοΈ Case law- VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR v. RAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRs. 2024
Plea of adverse possession is a blend of fact and law.
β Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India, 2004 (The person who claims adverse possession must show the following:)
(a) on what date he came into possession;
(b) what was the nature of his possession;
(c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party;
(d) how long his possession has continued; and
(e) his possession was open and undisturbed.
The Court added that a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favor bcz the person seeking such possession is attempting to defeat the true owner's rights.
β Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan, 2009
βModern statutes of limitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut off one's right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been in the adverse possession of another for a specified time but also to vest the possessor with title. The intention of such statutes is not to punish one who neglects to assert rights but to protect those who have maintained the possession of property for the time specified by the statute under a claim of right or colour of title.β
β Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. ESI Corpn, 1971
(Court extensively discussed the object of the Limitation Act)
βThe necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to ensure that actions are commenced within a particular period,
1. To assure the availability of evidence documentary as well as oral to enable the defendant to contest the claim against him;
2. To give effect to the principle that law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant without asseting them in a court of law. The principle which forms the basis of this rule is expressed in the maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura subveniunt (the laws give help to those who are watchful and not to those who sleep)β
β Saroop Singh v. Banto, 2005
Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. Further, the physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases related to adverse possession.
#case_brief
@CurrentLegalGK
Adverse Possession Explained -βοΈ Case law- VASANTHA (DEAD) THR. LR v. RAJALAKSHMI @ RAJAM (DEAD) THR.LRs. 2024
Plea of adverse possession is a blend of fact and law.
β Karnataka Board of Wakf v. Govt. of India, 2004 (The person who claims adverse possession must show the following:)
(a) on what date he came into possession;
(b) what was the nature of his possession;
(c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party;
(d) how long his possession has continued; and
(e) his possession was open and undisturbed.
The Court added that a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favor bcz the person seeking such possession is attempting to defeat the true owner's rights.
β Hemaji Waghaji Jat v. Bhikhabhai Khengarbhai Harijan, 2009
βModern statutes of limitation operate, as a rule, not only to cut off one's right to bring an action for the recovery of property that has been in the adverse possession of another for a specified time but also to vest the possessor with title. The intention of such statutes is not to punish one who neglects to assert rights but to protect those who have maintained the possession of property for the time specified by the statute under a claim of right or colour of title.β
β Bharat Barrel and Drum Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. ESI Corpn, 1971
(Court extensively discussed the object of the Limitation Act)
βThe necessity for enacting periods of limitation is to ensure that actions are commenced within a particular period,
1. To assure the availability of evidence documentary as well as oral to enable the defendant to contest the claim against him;
2. To give effect to the principle that law does not assist a person who is inactive and sleeps over his rights by allowing them when challenged or disputed to remain dormant without asseting them in a court of law. The principle which forms the basis of this rule is expressed in the maximum vigilantibus, non dermientibus, jura subveniunt (the laws give help to those who are watchful and not to those who sleep)β
β Saroop Singh v. Banto, 2005
Article 65 of the Limitation Act, the starting point of limitation does not commence from the date when the right of ownership arises to the plaintiff but commences from the date the defendant's possession becomes adverse. Further, the physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases related to adverse possession.
#case_brief
@CurrentLegalGK
π5π―3
Electoral Bonds SC Verdict: Why did the Supreme Court strike down the electoral bonds scheme? | Explained - The Hindu
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/why-did-the-supreme-court-strike-down-the-electoral-bonds-scheme-explained/article67848657.ece
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/why-did-the-supreme-court-strike-down-the-electoral-bonds-scheme-explained/article67848657.ece
The Hindu
Why did the Supreme Court strike down the electoral bonds scheme? | Explained
Electoral Bonds scheme: The Hindu decodes the key takeaways from the verdict ranging from donor privacy to the scope of the right to information
π₯2π―1
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
LLP Detailed Demand for Maratha Reservation Notes.pdf
π¨ββοΈ
Is Reservation under Article 15 & 16, a Fundamental Right?
@CurrentLegalGK
Reservation judgments compilationIs Reservation under Article 15 & 16, a Fundamental Right?
@CurrentLegalGK
π3π₯1
Roster Notified By Chief Justice Binding On All Judges; No Bench Can Hear A Case Unless Assigned By CJ: Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/roster-notified-by-chief-justice-binding-on-all-judges-no-bench-can-hear-a-case-unless-assigned-by-cj-supreme-court-249725
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/roster-notified-by-chief-justice-binding-on-all-judges-no-bench-can-hear-a-case-unless-assigned-by-cj-supreme-court-249725
www.livelaw.in
Roster Notified By Chief Justice Binding On All Judges; No Bench Can Hear A Case Unless Assigned By CJ: Supreme Court
Recently, the Supreme Court observed that a Bench, after releasing the case, is not competent to re-hear the case unless the case is assigned back to the Bench by the Chief Justice as the master
π1π₯1
π―11π1π€£1
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
Translation 2 @CurrentLegalGK.pdf
ποΈ
If you need material on Learning Translation inform us below, also one tip in Advance make your own glossary and just add that with our material.
Use Bare Acts and PYQs of All States.
@CurrentLegalGK
This Material is for Practice.If you need material on Learning Translation inform us below, also one tip in Advance make your own glossary and just add that with our material.
Use Bare Acts and PYQs of All States.
@CurrentLegalGK
π5π2π€£1
π―
5 Judges 2 Judgments
Same Conclusions Different Reasoning by Sanjiv Khanna and different application of Doctrine of Proportionality
Coram
β CJI DY Chandrachud
BR Gavai
JB Pardiwala
Manoj Misra
β Sanjiv Khanna
β Companies Act
1. Removes the cap on corporate funding- 7.5 % of last 3 years turnover ommitted and no need to disclose party name in accounts only total amount donated need to be disclosed
β Income Tax due to Finance Act
By political parties No need to maintain records of name and address of person contributing under electoral bonds scheme normally above 20k it is required.
β RPA 1951
Political parties are't required to disclose details of contributions received by Bonds, earlier they were not given exemption of taxes if they does not disclose details above βΉ20k
β RBI
Not to mention the name of the Party to whom they are payable
@CurrentLegalGK
RELEVANT SNAPSHOTS FROM ELECTORAL BONDS JUDGMENT5 Judges 2 Judgments
Same Conclusions Different Reasoning by Sanjiv Khanna and different application of Doctrine of Proportionality
Coram
β CJI DY Chandrachud
BR Gavai
JB Pardiwala
Manoj Misra
β Sanjiv Khanna
Scheme of Electoral Bond and AMENDMENTS under 5 Sections of Different 5 Statutes were challenged
β Companies Act
1. Removes the cap on corporate funding- 7.5 % of last 3 years turnover ommitted and no need to disclose party name in accounts only total amount donated need to be disclosed
β Income Tax due to Finance Act
By political parties No need to maintain records of name and address of person contributing under electoral bonds scheme normally above 20k it is required.
β RPA 1951
Political parties are't required to disclose details of contributions received by Bonds, earlier they were not given exemption of taxes if they does not disclose details above βΉ20k
β RBI
Not to mention the name of the Party to whom they are payable
@CurrentLegalGK
β€6π1