#Question@CurrentLegalGK

Supreme court took suo motu cognizance of this case, but why can you explain in brief?

Non Compete contracts and legal validity in India

Section 27 of Indian Contract act

@CurrentLegalGK

Supreme Court ruling on socialism, secularism - The Hindu
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/supreme-court-ruling-on-socialism-secularism/article68915865.ece

Important Environmental Law orders and judgments passed in 2024
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/important-environmental-law-orders-and-judgments-passed-in-2024

Rajasthan APO 2025 .pdf

answer key
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/4805

#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

This Question was being discussed day before yesterday.
@LegalQuizzes

Recording Of Search And Seizure Through Audio-Video Electronic Means Under Section 105 Of The BNSS
https://www.livelaw.in/articles/recording-of-search-and-seizure-electronic-mode-section-105-bnss-281366

kuch khaas nahi likha hai bus ek baar section ache se padhlo.

New criminal laws pe hardly koi development hua h after july jahan tak mujhe lgta h commentaries buy krne se acha hai khud CrPC ke landmark judgments pdhkar analyse kro comparitively, ye sub articles books time waste hain discussion on bare act provisions is must.

@CurrentLegalGK

Shocked To See Many Non-Meat Products Having Halal Certification : Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/supreme-court-fixes-for-hearing-pleas-challenging-up-govt-ban-on-halal-certified-products-told-halal-certification-costly-281423

halal cement halal sariye (iron rods)

Corruption by certification agencies 🙃

Police Arresting Accused After Filing Chargesheet & Court's Cognizance Makes No Sense : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/police-arresting-accused-after-filing-chargesheet-courts-cognizance-makes-no-sense-supreme-court-281420

#Question@CurrentLegalGK

Can police arrest after the court has taken cognizance of the case❓

Two accused individuals met at the scene of the incident and inflicted injuries on the victim. One, armed with a knife, caused more severe injuries than the other, who carried a chopper and inflicted less serious harm. The High Court reduced the conviction of the latter from Section 326 IPC to Section 324 IPC, citing no prior common intention. Determine the appropriateness of this decision.

a. The High Court erred in modifying the conviction because the degree of harm inflicted on the victim cannot be the basis for reducing the sentence when both accused acted with a common intention.
b. The degree of injury inflicted on the victim can serve as a basis for sentence reduction, irrespective of whether both accused acted with a common intention.
c. The High Court did not commit an error, as there was no prior meeting of minds to establish that both accused acted with a common intention.
d. Both (b) and (c)

Answer: Option (a)
Case Title:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA v. BATTEGOWDA

#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

Can a suit seeking only an injunction be dismissed solely because it does not seek a declaratory relief under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 when the defendant does not dispute the plaintiff's title?

😉 No Options are being provided.

#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK

In 1994, Mr. A was adopted by a widow, Ms. B, after the death of her husband, Mr. C. Prior to the adoption, Ms. B had acquired property through a sale deed in 1985, which was her absolute property. In 2007, Ms. B executed another sale deed for the same property in favor of two other parties, Mr. D and Mr. E, without consulting or obtaining consent from Mr. A, the adopted son. Mr. A claims that his right to the property should relate to the date of his adoptive father's (Mr. C) death in 1982, and therefore, the sale deed executed after his adoption should be invalid as it was done without his consent. In light of the facts mentioned and the applicable legal provisions, which of the following is the correct legal outcome?

Sale valid or invalid and why?

Case Title: Sri Mahesh Versus Sangram & Ors.
Explanation: According to the Supreme Court ruling, the property acquired by a female Hindu prior to the adoption remains her absolute property, and the adopted child's rights do not divest the adoptive mother of her rights over such property. The sale deed executed by Ms. B in 2007 is valid, as the rights she had acquired before the adoption remain intact.