Section 375 IPC = whether the prosecutrix consented to the physical relationship under any misconception of fact with regard to the promise of marriage by the appellant or was her consent based on a fraudulent misrepresentation of marriage which the appellant never intended to keep since the very inception of the relationship. ?

https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2020/09/section-375-ipc-whether-prosecutrix.html If we reach the conclusion that he intentionally made a fraudulent misrepresentation from the very inception and the prosecutrix gave her consent on a misconception of fact, the offence of rape under Section 375 IPC is clearly made out.  It is not possible to hold   in   the   nature   of   evidence   on   record   that   the   appellant obtained her consent at the inception by putting her under any fear. Under Section 90 IPC a consent given under fear of injury is not a consent in the eyes of law.  In the facts of the present case 10 we are not persuaded to accept the solitary statement of the prosecutrix   that   at   the   time   of   the   first   alleged   offence   her consent was obtained under fear of injury.   … Read More Section 375 IPC = whether the prosecutrix consented to the physical relationship under any misconception of fact with regard to the promise of marriage by the appellant or was her consent based on a fraudulent misrepresentation of marriage which the appellant never intended to keep since the very inception of the relationship. ?

whether the the petitioner’s brother is very influential with the local judiciary ?

https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2020/09/whether-the-petitioners-brother-is-very.html how the pictures taken on the occasion of a cricket tournament conducted by a Bar Association and witnessed by a few judicial officers can be an indication of the influence exerted by the petitioner’s family on the entire district judiciary, merely because the judicial officers and Advocates have stood shoulder to shoulder on that occasion. It was not a private event but an event open to all lawyers of the District Bar. The fact that the petitioner’s brother who is  a lawyer, has a Facebook page and that the same has lot of followers and that it attracts a lot of comments and likes cannot be the basis to conclude that the petitioner’s brother is very influential with the local judiciary. 

Notification under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 – introduced a tariff entry by which all goods originating in or exported from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan were subjected to an enhanced customs duty of 200%. – Whether is prospective or retrospective and tax is reassessable ?

https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2020/09/notification-under-section-8a-of.html The High Court held that since the importers, who had imported goods from 7 PART A Pakistan, had presented their bills of entry and completed the process of “selfassessment” before the notification enhancing the rate of duty to 200 per cent was issued and uploaded, the enhanced rate of duty was not attracted. The… Read More Notification under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 – introduced a tariff entry by which all goods originating in or exported from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan were subjected to an enhanced customs duty of 200%. – Whether is prospective or retrospective and tax is reassessable ?

Whether the respondent No.1 being founder member of Consortium of National Law Universities, a registered society, is bound by its Bye-Laws and was obliged to admit the students for integrated B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) Programme through CLAT 2020?

 https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2020/09/whether-respondent-no1-being-founder.html NLSIU, a premier Law University of the country, was established pursuant to a joint initiative of the Supreme Court of India, the Bar Council of India and the Karnataka Bar Council. Bar Council of India, set up a society, namely, National Law School of India Society as a registered society under the Karnataka Societies… Read More Whether the respondent No.1 being founder member of Consortium of National Law Universities, a registered society, is bound by its Bye-Laws and was obliged to admit the students for integrated B.A.LL.B. (Hons.) Programme through CLAT 2020?

right of the parties to get the matter disposed of expeditiously

it is the right of the parties to get the matter disposed of expeditiously                  particularly in Family Court matters, the trial Court is directed to make an endeavour to dispose of the matter expeditiously. Both parities are directed to cooperate for speedy disposal of the matter.  https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2020/09/right-of-parties-to-get-matter-disposed.html the… Read More right of the parties to get the matter disposed of expeditiously

Order I Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of CPC. – impleading petition by third parties – since there is registered lease agreement between the plaintiffs/landlords herein and the defendant/tenant herein with respect to the plaint schedule property herein, the submission of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties that they have taken the plaint schedule property herein for monthly lease from the plaintiffs/landlords is also found untenable – as the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties are neither necessary nor proper parties to be impleaded in the present suit.- Court dismissed their petition.

https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2020/09/order-i-rule-102-and-section-151-of-cpc.html “It is relevant to note here that the present suit in O.S.No.131/2015 is filed by the plaintiffs not basing on any oral lease, but basing on the registered lease deed, dated 05.03.2012 executed by the plaintiffs herein and the defendant herein with respect to the plaint schedule property. The said registered lease agreement, dated… Read More Order I Rule 10(2) and Section 151 of CPC. – impleading petition by third parties – since there is registered lease agreement between the plaintiffs/landlords herein and the defendant/tenant herein with respect to the plaint schedule property herein, the submission of the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties that they have taken the plaint schedule property herein for monthly lease from the plaintiffs/landlords is also found untenable – as the petitioner Nos.1 to 3/third parties are neither necessary nor proper parties to be impleaded in the present suit.- Court dismissed their petition.

DOCUMENT PETITION, REOPEN PETITION, RECALL PETITION – when DW.2 clearly referred to the fact that both the attestors to Ex.B1 are no more, in his deposition, it is unnecessary either to reopen the suit, to receive the documents sought to be produced by the 1 st respondent or to recall DW.1 for the purpose of marking them.

https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2020/09/document-petition-reopen-petition.html ‘whether the petitions filed by the respondents could have been ordered by the learned trial Judge and permitting recall of DW.1 for the purpose ofmarking the documents sought to be produced through him, is proper?’t he trial Court could not have come to the conclusion observing that the General Power of Attorney of the… Read More DOCUMENT PETITION, REOPEN PETITION, RECALL PETITION – when DW.2 clearly referred to the fact that both the attestors to Ex.B1 are no more, in his deposition, it is unnecessary either to reopen the suit, to receive the documents sought to be produced by the 1 st respondent or to recall DW.1 for the purpose of marking them.

Or.39 rule 1&2 CPC-Whether the petitioner has made out prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and against the respondents?

Or.39 rule 1&2 CPC-Whether the petitioner has made out prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and against the respondents? https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2020/09/or39-rule-1-cpc-whether-petitioner-has.html The material in the nature of revenue records produced by the petitioner did make out his case as to possession and enjoyment and as a matter of right, on a prima… Read More Or.39 rule 1&2 CPC-Whether the petitioner has made out prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and against the respondents?

Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C, it is obligatory for the Court to issue a notice before directing attachment. – it is a relief which has to be granted in exceptional cases and in specified circumstances contemplated by Order XXXVIII Rule 5(1) C.P.C.

https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2020/09/order-xxxviii-rule-5-cpc-it-is.html A party to the suit, namely, the plaintiff cannot as a matter of right insist that there shall be invariably an order to attach the property or the movables, which the party claims being the security or the subject matter of the petition.  Even otherwise, it is a relief which has to be granted… Read More Order XXXVIII Rule 5 C.P.C, it is obligatory for the Court to issue a notice before directing attachment. – it is a relief which has to be granted in exceptional cases and in specified circumstances contemplated by Order XXXVIII Rule 5(1) C.P.C.