S. 68 Evidence Act | Mandatory To Examine One Attesting Witness To Prove Will Even If There's No Dispute Between Legal Heirs : Supreme Court
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s-68-evidence-act-mandatory-to-examine-one-attesting-witness-to-prove-will-even-if-theres-no-dispute-between-legal-heirs-supreme-court-303070
https://www.livelaw.in/supreme-court/s-68-evidence-act-mandatory-to-examine-one-attesting-witness-to-prove-will-even-if-theres-no-dispute-between-legal-heirs-supreme-court-303070
www.livelaw.in
S. 68 Evidence Act | Mandatory To Examine One Attesting Witness To Prove Will Even If There's No Dispute Between Legal Heirs :β¦
The Supreme Court recently held that Section 68 of the Evidence Act makes it mandatory to examine at least one attesting witness to a Will, and this requirement cannot be dispensed with merely...
β€1π1
'BNSS Removed Discriminatory Provision' : Supreme Court Closes Challenge To CrPC Section Which Says Only Male Family Members Can Accept Summons
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/bnss-removed-discriminatory-provision-supreme-court-closes-challenge-to-crpc-section-which-says-only-male-family-members-can-accept-summons-262758
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/bnss-removed-discriminatory-provision-supreme-court-closes-challenge-to-crpc-section-which-says-only-male-family-members-can-accept-summons-262758
www.livelaw.in
'BNSS Removed Discriminatory Provision' : Supreme Court Closes Challenge To CrPC Section Which Says Only Male Family Members Canβ¦
The Supreme Court on Tuesday(July 9) closed a petition challenging a gender discriminatory provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 taking note of the fact that the statute's replacement,...
β€3π2
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
'BNSS Removed Discriminatory Provision' : Supreme Court Closes Challenge To CrPC Section Which Says Only Male Family Members Can Accept Summons https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/bnss-removed-discriminatory-provision-supreme-court-closes-challenge-to-crpcβ¦
So even if a law is still in force and a substitute law has remedied the invalidity then no petition can be entertained for making earlier invalid provision invalid which is still applicable.
The Writ Petition under Article 32 challenged the constitutional validity of Section 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 on the ground that it was discriminatory against women by disabling them from accepting summons on behalf of the persons summoned.
3. Parliament, while enacting the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has incorporated the provisions of Section 66 which addresses the grievance.
dismissed petition
#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK
The Writ Petition under Article 32 challenged the constitutional validity of Section 64 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 on the ground that it was discriminatory against women by disabling them from accepting summons on behalf of the persons summoned.
3. Parliament, while enacting the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has incorporated the provisions of Section 66 which addresses the grievance.
KUSH KALRA V. UOI 2024
dismissed petition
#BNSS@CurrentLegalGK
β€4π1
#Quote@CurrentLegalGK
βIt is of utmost importance to keep all speech free in order for the truth to emerge and have a civil society.β
β Thomas Jefferson.
βIt is of utmost importance to keep all speech free in order for the truth to emerge and have a civil society.β
β Thomas Jefferson.
π―4β€2
Please open Telegram to view this post
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
π°
The Apex Court, through Honβble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, held that βwitness and parties to a suit, for the purposes of adducing evidence, either documentary or oral are on the same footing.β
Accordingly, (i) there is no distinction carved out by the provisions of the CPC between a βparty to a suit as a witnessβ and βa witness simpliciterβ; and (ii) documents may be produced to confront both a βparty to a suitβ and βwitness in a civil trialβ at the stage of cross-examination.
https://disputeresolution.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2024/01/party-and-witness-on-an-equal-footing-for-the-purpose-of-adducing-evidence-in-civil-suit-supreme-court-clarifies/#_ftn1
#BSA@CurrentLegalGK
Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer 2021
The Apex Court, through Honβble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, held that βwitness and parties to a suit, for the purposes of adducing evidence, either documentary or oral are on the same footing.β
Accordingly, (i) there is no distinction carved out by the provisions of the CPC between a βparty to a suit as a witnessβ and βa witness simpliciterβ; and (ii) documents may be produced to confront both a βparty to a suitβ and βwitness in a civil trialβ at the stage of cross-examination.
https://disputeresolution.cyrilamarchandblogs.com/2024/01/party-and-witness-on-an-equal-footing-for-the-purpose-of-adducing-evidence-in-civil-suit-supreme-court-clarifies/#_ftn1
#BSA@CurrentLegalGK
1405920211946876order12-sep-2023-492294.pdf
122.7 KB
The enactment of a new law will not obviate the need to adjudicate upon the constitutional validity of Section 124A for the simple reason that any new legislation of a penal character cannot have retrospective effect.
See the stark conflict
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/6827
The only difference is that of procedural and substantive law.
@CurrentLegalGK
See the stark conflict
https://t.me/CurrentLegalGK/6827
The only difference is that of procedural and substantive law.
@CurrentLegalGK
β€1π―1
#BSA@CurrentLegalGK
#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK
A, an accomplice, gives an account of a robbery in which he took part. He also narrates certain incidents unconnected with the robbery that happened on his way to and from the scene of crime. Which of the following statements is correct regarding the admissibility of such evidence?
(a) Independent evidence of these incidents is irrelevant, as they are not directly connected with the robbery
(b) Independent evidence of these incidents may be admitted to corroborate A's testimony regarding the robbery
(c) Independent evidence of these incidents is admissible only if A is not an accomplice
(d) Independent evidence of these incidents are conclusive proof of the robbery
#MCQ@CurrentLegalGK
A, an accomplice, gives an account of a robbery in which he took part. He also narrates certain incidents unconnected with the robbery that happened on his way to and from the scene of crime. Which of the following statements is correct regarding the admissibility of such evidence?
(a) Independent evidence of these incidents is irrelevant, as they are not directly connected with the robbery
(b) Independent evidence of these incidents may be admitted to corroborate A's testimony regarding the robbery
(c) Independent evidence of these incidents is admissible only if A is not an accomplice
(d) Independent evidence of these incidents are conclusive proof of the robbery
CITE RELEVANT PROVISIONS
β€5
ππ
Of course camera could not justify it due to cloudy weather, the colour was really Red.
Today, Learnt the lunar rising point cycles.
πMyth busted: Unlike Solar eclipse, you can watch Lunar eclipse with Naked Eyes.
Astrophysics is always Amazing π€©
@CurrentLegalGK
Lunar Eclipse | Peak of Blood Moon.Of course camera could not justify it due to cloudy weather, the colour was really Red.
Today, Learnt the lunar rising point cycles.
πMyth busted: Unlike Solar eclipse, you can watch Lunar eclipse with Naked Eyes.
Astrophysics is always Amazing π€©
@CurrentLegalGK
β€βπ₯5β‘3π₯2β€1
Income Tax Act 2025: Digital Search Powers Raise Privacy Risks - Frontline
https://frontline.thehindu.com/news/income-tax-act-2025-digital-power-data-privacy-risks/article69992742.ece
https://frontline.thehindu.com/news/income-tax-act-2025-digital-power-data-privacy-risks/article69992742.ece
The Hindu
Indiaβs new tax law raids your cloud
Indiaβs new Income Tax Act expands raids into digital spaces, forcing decryption and access to private data. A sweeping law with weak safeguards.
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
Income Tax Act 2025: Digital Search Powers Raise Privacy Risks - Frontline https://frontline.thehindu.com/news/income-tax-act-2025-digital-power-data-privacy-risks/article69992742.ece
If you donβt hand over your phone passcode or email password on demand, officials can hack into the device. Any refusal is now explicitly punishable as non-compliance.
This is a radical change. Previously, if a taxpayerβs device was encrypted, authorities resorted to informal pressure or external hacking tools. Now the law itself compels decryption. End-to-end encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp or Signal could be forced open during a tax raid
#Tax@CurrentLegalGK
This is a radical change. Previously, if a taxpayerβs device was encrypted, authorities resorted to informal pressure or external hacking tools. Now the law itself compels decryption. End-to-end encrypted messaging services like WhatsApp or Signal could be forced open during a tax raid
#Tax@CurrentLegalGK
π4
Legal due diligence checklist before buying a home in India
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/legal-due-diligence-checklist-before-buying-a-home-in-india
https://www.barandbench.com/columns/legal-due-diligence-checklist-before-buying-a-home-in-india
Bar and Bench - Indian Legal news
Legal due diligence checklist before buying a home in India
Buying property without due diligence is like signing a contract without reading it. Behind the excitement of browsing listings or stepping into a new home lies
β€2π1
Supreme Court Half Yearly Digest 2025 Cr.P.C.& BNSS .pdf
495.3 KB
π―3β€βπ₯1π€1
Res Judicata in Criminal Proceedings
https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/res-judicata-in-criminal-proceedings
https://www.drishtijudiciary.com/current-affairs/res-judicata-in-criminal-proceedings
Drishti Judiciary
Res Judicata in Criminal Proceedings
A bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra held that res judicata applies to criminal proceedings as well
Actress Navya Nair Fined Rs 1.14 Lakh at Melbourne Airport for Carrying Jasmine Gajra
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/actress-navya-nair-fined-rs-114-lakh-at-melbourne-airport-for-carrying-gajra-why-australia-has-such-rigid-rules-3716932
https://www.deccanherald.com/india/actress-navya-nair-fined-rs-114-lakh-at-melbourne-airport-for-carrying-gajra-why-australia-has-such-rigid-rules-3716932
Deccan Herald
Actress Navya Nair Fined Rs 1.14 Lakh at Melbourne Airport for Carrying Jasmine Gajra
Malayalam actress Navya Nair was fined Rs 1.14 lakh at Melbourne International Airport for carrying a jasmine gajra without declaring it, violating Australiaβs strict Biosecurity Act designed to protect crops and biodiversity.
ππΌπΎπΈπ βπββπΌβπ πΈπ½π½πΈπβπ πΉπͺ- βππ₯π¦π£ππ ππ¦π€π₯πππ β’
Actress Navya Nair Fined Rs 1.14 Lakh at Melbourne Airport for Carrying Jasmine Gajra https://www.deccanherald.com/india/actress-navya-nair-fined-rs-114-lakh-at-melbourne-airport-for-carrying-gajra-why-australia-has-such-rigid-rules-3716932
Australia, is an island nation that is known for its unique plants, animals and ecosystem. As it is isolated, pests and disease that exists elsewhere in the world cannot be found in Australia.
According to Australia's Biosecurity Act, introducing even small amounts of foreign material could damage local crops, spread plant diseases, or threaten native species
Ignorance of law is not an excuse and concept of Mens rea which two landmark cases? mention below π
@CurrentLegalGK
According to Australia's Biosecurity Act, introducing even small amounts of foreign material could damage local crops, spread plant diseases, or threaten native species
Ignorance of law is not an excuse and concept of Mens rea which two landmark cases? mention below π
@CurrentLegalGK
π³1