lawskart

Submissions Made By Counsel For Petitioner & Respondent In High Court For Judicature of Rajasthan At Jodhpur Learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no absolute right of any person to acquire an arms license and the respondents have every right to objectively decide each case, while taking into consideration the past record of the person seeking such license as well as the pendency of proceedings, if any.  Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage, submits that it would be sufficient if the respondents are directed to pass fresh orders on the petitioners’ cases individually, while keeping in the view the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Khem Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2005 (2) Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 907. This Court’s attention is drawn to Para 5 of Khem Singh (supra). “Mere fact that some reports have been lodged against the license holder is not sufficient for cancelling the license. A license can be re

For doing complete justice in a unique case, Supreme Court on June 14, 2022 used its powers, under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, to allow a man to become an IAS officer after eight years, who cleared the civil services examinations in 2014, but was found unfit because of a high body mass index (BMI).  Article 142 of the Constitution of India speaks about  "Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and order as to discovery, etc." . In this Article, The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or order so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament. The name of person is Mr. K Rajashekhar Reddy who succeeded in CSE-2014 and his medical examination revealed a BMI of 32 whereas the mandatory requirement of B

Twelve former judges and senior lawyers have urged the Court through letter to intervene to arrest the "deteriorating law and order situation" in Uttar Pradesh.  They also Urged the apex court to take suo motu cognizance of the demolition of houses of protesters by the Uttar Pradesh State authorities and detention of many such protesters. The signatories to the letter wrote to the Apex Court are: 1. Justice B. Sudarshan Reddy (Former judge of Supreme Court); 2. Justice A.K. Ganguly, (Former judge of Supreme Court); 3. Justice V. Gopala Gowda (Former judge of Supreme Court); 4. Justice K Chandru (Former Judge of Madras High Court); 5. Justice AP Shah (Former Chief Justice of Delhi High Court and former Chairperson of Law Commission of India); 6. Justice Mohammed Anwar (Former Judge of Karnataka High Court); 7. Shanti Bhushan (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court); 8. Indira Jaising (Senior Advocate, Supreme Court); 9. Sriram Panchu (Senior Advocate, Madras High Court); 10. Chander U

Validity of stamp paper has always been a matter of confusion in the mind of a person who purchases the same and is not able to use the same within next six months. According to section 54 of the Indian Stamp Act 1899 , if a person does not have the use of the stamp paper, then he can deposit the same with the collector, within six months from the date of purchase and can get the refund of money after a deduction of 10 paise per rupee. Provided that the stamp paper has not been spoiled or rendered unfit or useless for the purpose intended. It is noteworthy to mention here that the aforesaid section 54 of Indian Stamp Act only talks about the refund in a case when you do not want to use the stamp paper. It is not written anywhere about the validity of stamp papers in Indian Stamp Act 1899, but people start making their own interpretation that stamp paper is valid for 6 months or whatever period, whereas it is just a myth and nothing else. In reality, you can use the stamp paper at