👩⚖️LAW LEARNER'S GROUP🤵
Kanalga Telegram’da o‘tish
Channel only for LAW Students, Advocates, Lawyers, LLB, LLM Students,
Ko'proq ko'rsatish1 621
Obunachilar
Ma'lumot yo'q24 soatlar
-77 kun
-730 kun
Postlar arxiv
*State of WB V. Jai Hind Pvt Ltd (2026 SC)*
Facts:
1. S.57A of the WBEA Act, 1953 provides that, “The State government may by order invest any authority with all the powers of a civil court under CPC”.
2. The State of WB, in exercise of its power u/S.57A vested the Revenue Authorities with all the powers of a civil court under CPC.
3. The issue before the SC is: whether the Revenue Authorities can Review its own orders?
SC held that:
1. The power of review is *not an inherent power* of the Court. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The quasijudicial authorities can exercise only those powers which are expressly conferred upon them by the statute. Hence, the power of review, which is not inherent, must be conferred upon the quasi-judicial authority by means of a *specific provision in the statute*.
2. Unless a specific statutory provision invests the power of Review in the Revenue Authorities, these authorities could not have possessed the power or authority to review an earlier order. The omnibus expression used i.e. “all the powers of the Civil Court”, does not amount to conferment of power of review as well to these authorities.
3. At a more fundamental level, in the absence of an express legislative mandate, allowing a Revenue Officer to review its own concluded quasi-judicial order would trench upon the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers, which constitutes part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Though vested with limited adjudicatory functions, authorities under the WBEA Act, 1953, remain essentially members of the executive branch and are neither part of the judicial organ nor equipped with the institutional safeguards that attend judicial office, such as independence from executive control.
Section 498A IPC Covers Live-In Relationships That Qualify As "Relationships In Nature Of Marriage" Between Consenting Adults With Intent To Marry: Supreme Court The Apex Court held that Section 498A IPC can apply to live-in relationships qualifying as relationships in the nature of marriage, but restricted the ruling to consenting adults and added that intent to marry must be established because the provision carries criminal consequences.
*Dr Lokesh B.H. & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.*
### *Step-by-Step Process to Check if Your Physical Verification or Declaration Form Has Been Received by the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa*
If you have submitted your verification or declaration form in physical format, follow these steps to verify on the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa's website (barcouncilmahgoa.org) whether it has been received. This process involves registering, logging in, and checking your dashboard.
#### Step 1: Visit the Website
- Open your web browser and go to the official website: [barcouncilmahgoa.org]
#### Step 2: Navigate to Services
- On the homepage, locate and click on the Services tab.
#### Step 3: Access Online Verification
- Under the Online Services section, find and click on Click Here for Online Verification Process.
#### Step 4: Register as a New User
- On the next page, click on Register New Users.
- A pop-up will appear asking: Are you already a member of BCMG?
- Select Yes.
#### Step 5: Validate Your Basic Details
- Enter your Enrollment Number and Date of Birth.
- Click on Validate.
#### Step 6: Validate Communication Details
- In the section labeled Please Validate Your Communication Details, enter your Email ID and Mobile Number. (Note: Use the Email ID and Mobile Number that are already linked/registered with the Bar Council.)
- Click on Validate.
#### Step 7: Enter OTPs for Verification
- You will receive an OTP on your registered Email ID and another on your Mobile Number.
- Enter both OTPs in the respective fields.
- Click on Validate.
#### Step 8: Complete Registration
- A message will appear confirming that your registration is successful.
#### Step 9: Proceed to Login
- On the same page, click on the Login option that appears.
#### Step 10: Log In Using Email
- Enter the same Email ID you used during registration.
- Click on Send OTP.
- You will receive an OTP on your Email ID—enter it in the provided field.
- Click on Login.
#### Step 11: Access Your Dashboard
- Once logged in, you will be directed to your Dashboard.
#### Step 12: Check Verification Status
- On the Dashboard, go to the Verification tab.
- Click on View Details.
- You will see your filled verification form.
- Scroll down on the same page—look for a message like "Your form has been successfully received, currently under processing."
- If this message appears, it confirms that your physical form has been received by the Bar Council.
#### Additional Notes:
- If you notice any errors or need corrections in the form, you can email the details to the provided Email ID on the page.
- Ensure your Email ID and Mobile Number are correctly linked with the Bar Council to avoid issues during OTP verification.
Thank you.
https://youtu.be/BNFjOw_UkhY
Please like, share, subscribe and comment.
Show your support 💪
The Karnataka High Court has allowed a petition filed by a woman seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty, after the husband failed to challenge the petition or the evidence led by the wife.
A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde set aside the family court order rejecting the divorce petition. It said, “When there is no challenge to the petition as well as to the evidence led by the wife, this Court is of the view that the Family Court erred in rejecting the petition.”
The parties got married in 2009 at Mysuru and the wife claimed that they lived together only for two months and even in those two months there was no harmony as the husband, under the influence of alcohol, used to abuse her. The plea was filed under Section 13(1)(1-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The husband appeared before the Court, however, did not file a statement of objections. Thereafter, the wife led evidence. However, the family court dismissed the petition.
Placing reliance on Supreme Court judgments in Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (D) through LRs. vs. Muddasani Sarojana (2016) and Vidhyadhar vs. Manikrao & Anr. (1999), the court said “As already stated, there is no cross-examination and there is no objection filed by the husband to the petition filed by the wife. When there is no challenge to the petition as well as to the evidence led by the wife, this Court is of the view that the Family Court erred in rejecting the petition.”
Observing that the Family Court has not adverted its attention to the evidence led by the petitioner/wife relating to cruelty, the bench held,
“ The husband has not filed an objection and has not cross-examined the wife. The testimony of the wife has remained unchallenged. Even before this court, none appeared opposing the appeal when the matter is heard today. Considering the materials placed on record this Court is of the view that the wife has established her plea of cruelty and she is entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage.”
Accordingly it allowed the appeal and dissolved the marriage.
Case Title: ABC And XYZ
Case NO: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4378 OF 2017
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 249
Date of Order: 26-06-2023
Appearance: Advocate P Nataraju for Appellant.
Advocate S.Rupesh Kumar for respondent
My First Product Patent certificate. Alhamdulillah Allah ka ehsaan hai aur meri Ammi aur Abba ki Dua, aur aap sab logon ka pyaar. I dedicate this to you all.
Shall like to thank and congratulate my learned fellow and friend members of my team without you all it would have not been possible.
Once again I thank all of you for your encouragement and support.
