ADVOMART

📢 Convict Without 'Permanent Residential Address In Delhi' Not Barred From Getting Furlough: High Court! The Delhi High Court has made a significant ruling affirming that the absence of a permanent residential address in Delhi cannot be a ground to deny furlough to a convict. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma emphasized that Delhi Prison Rules do not stipulate that a convict must have a "permanent residential address in Delhi" to qualify for furlough. The Court clarified that: 🔹 Furlough can be granted if the convict's address—whether permanent or temporary—has been duly verified, even if it is in another state. 🔹 The rule requires a convict to provide the “proposed address” where they wish to stay, not necessarily a permanent one. The judgment warns against rigid interpretations of welfare-oriented provisions, highlighting the risks of overlooking the rehabilitative intent behind furlough and parole. This ruling was made while granting a 3-week furlough to a convict serving life imprisonment since 2008. The convict’s application had been previously rejected solely because of the lack of a permanent address in Delhi. Justice Sharma concluded that furlough is both a reward for commendable behavior and a tool to strengthen familial and social bonds, crucial for prisoner rehabilitation. This empathetic approach sends a powerful message about upholding justice, fairness, and the spirit of reformative measures. #LegalUpdate #JusticeForAll #Furlough #HighCourt #DelhiPrisonRules #HumanRights #PrisonReforms #Advocacy #Empathy #SocialJustice

🚨 Karnataka High Court Issues Notice on CM Siddaramaiah's Appeal in MUDA Case 🚨 The Karnataka High Court, on December 5, issued notices to the state government and others regarding Chief Minister Siddaramaiah's appeal challenging the single judge’s decision to uphold Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot's sanction for investigating the alleged Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) scam. Key Highlights: 📝 CM Siddaramaiah argued that Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act was violated and improperly upheld, emphasizing the absence of procedural filters, such as approval by a police officer, before the Governor's sanction. 📜 Constitutional Questions Raised: Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Abhishek Manu Singhvi emphasized the broader constitutional implications, including the interpretation of Section 17A, the Governor's authority, and the balance between the Governor's discretion and cabinet advice. ⚖️ Notice Issued: A division bench led by Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria set January 25, 2025, as the returnable date. Appeals from other parties, including landowner Devaraju, were also acknowledged, as they contest the Governor’s sanction and the transfer of the MUDA case to the CBI. 🔍 Background: Siddaramaiah’s petition alleges that the sanction order bypassed statutory mandates and constitutional principles, including Article 163, which requires the Governor to act on the council of ministers' advice. The CM contends the move is politically motivated to destabilize the Karnataka government. This case has far-reaching implications for governance, constitutional law, and corruption inquiries in India. Stay tuned for further developments! #KarnatakaHighCourt #Siddaramaiah #MUDA #GovernorSanction #PreventionOfCorruptionAct #ConstitutionalLaw #LegalUpdates #JusticeInProgress

🚨 Litigant Seeking To Condone Delay Must Explain Why Appeal Was Not Filed From Day One Within Limitation Period 🚨 📜 The Supreme Court of India has clarified an important principle regarding condonation of delay in appeals. The Court ruled that litigants seeking condonation must explain not just the delay after the limitation period ended but also why the appeal was not filed within the limitation period itself. ⚖️ While the Court acknowledged that litigants have the right to file appeals up to the last day of the limitation period, they emphasized that any lapse beyond this period requires a clear and specific explanation rooted in events or circumstances that occurred within the limitation period. This observation came as the Court, with a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan, dismissed an appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh seeking to condone a delay of over 5 years in filing a second appeal. 🔍 Referencing Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and Another v. State of Gujarat, the Court highlighted: A plea for condonation must establish that some event or circumstance during the limitation period prevented the filing of the appeal. Any delays caused by events after the limitation expired are not sufficient cause for condonation. This decision reinforces the responsibility of litigants to act promptly within the stipulated period, ensuring judicial efficiency and upholding procedural discipline. #SupremeCourt #CondonationOfDelay #Litigation #LegalUpdates #Justice #ProceduralLaw

🌾 Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole to Murder Convict for Agricultural Responsibilities The Karnataka High Court has shown a compassionate approach, granting 90 days of parole to a murder convict, Chandra, to oversee agricultural activities on his father’s land. 🌾 ⚖️ Key Details: ✅ Justice Hemant Chandangoudar noted that the petitioner, serving a life sentence for over 11 years, had never been released on parole before. ✅ The convict argued that there was no male member available to manage the agricultural work, which required his oversight. ✅ The parole comes with conditions: No involvement in unlawful activities. Weekly attendance marking with the jurisdictional police. This decision highlights a balance between ensuring justice and addressing humanitarian considerations. #KarnatakaHighCourt #LegalUpdates #Parole #Agriculture #HumanitarianLaw

📢 Supreme Court Highlights the Importance of Readiness & Willingness in Specific Performance Cases The Supreme Court recently upheld a High Court ruling that denied specific relief to a plaintiff due to the failure to prove readiness and willingness to perform the contract. 🛑 Key Takeaways: ✅ The plaintiff must not only claim readiness and willingness but must also present oral and documentary evidence to show financial capacity and adherence to contract terms. ✅ Readiness refers to the financial ability to perform, while willingness relates to the plaintiff’s conduct. ✅ Both elements are essential to securing a decree for specific performance. In this case, the plaintiff sought specific performance of a sale agreement, alleging the respondent failed to uphold the contract after receiving earnest money. The Trial Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, but the High Court reversed the decision, citing a lack of proof on the plaintiff's part. The Supreme Court affirmed this view, emphasizing the necessity of evidentiary support. #SupremeCourt #LegalUpdates #ContractLaw #SpecificPerformance #ReadinessAndWillingness #LegalInsights

🌟 We're Hiring: Legal Telecaller 🌟 Join Advomart in building a 'Rapid Justice Delivery Ecosystem'! Are you passionate about making legal services accessible and user-friendly? Advomart is on a mission to connect individuals, law students, and legal professionals to ensure justice is delivered promptly and without barriers. 💼 Role: Legal Telecaller 📍 Location: Gurugram (with some remote flexibility) 🕒 Type: Full-Time 💸 Stipend: up to 10,000/- Key Responsibilities: Making outbound calls to clients and providing legal assistance. Addressing client inquiries and maintaining detailed client records. Scheduling appointments and facilitating communication with legal professionals. What We’re Looking For: Exceptional communication and interpersonal skills. Strong understanding of legal terminology and processes. Experience in customer service or call center roles. Ability to multitask and work independently. Familiarity with legal databases and research tools. Fluency in multiple languages is a bonus. Bachelor’s degree in Law or a related field. 🔗 Apply Now: Fill out this form to be considered: https://lnkd.in/g_ES_UBh Deadline: 6th December, 2024, till 6:00 PM. 📢 Spread the word or tag someone who might be interested! Let’s work together to make legal services more accessible. #Hiring #LegalJobs #Advomart #LegalTelecaller #JoinUs

🌟 Celebrating National Advocates Day with Advomart! 🌟 On this special day, we honor the dedication, courage, and integrity of all advocates who tirelessly work to uphold justice and empower the voices of those in need. At Advomart, we strive to complement the efforts of legal professionals by creating a Rapid Justice Delivery Ecosystem, making legal services accessible, affordable, and efficient for everyone. Today, let’s recognize the pivotal role advocates play in shaping a fair and equitable society. Your passion for justice inspires us to continue innovating for a brighter future. 💼 Empowering Advocates, Empowering Justice. #NationalAdvocatesDay #Advomart #LegalEmpowerment #JusticeForAll #AdvocateLife #LegalSupport #RapidJusticeDelivery

🚨 Kerala High Court: No Case of Defamation for Comments on Banned Organizations like PFI The Kerala High Court has clarified that defamation cases cannot be made for remarks on banned organizations such as the Popular Front of India (PFI). Justice PV Kunhikrishnan highlighted that since the PFI was declared an "unlawful association" by the Central government in September 2022, it no longer holds legal entity status under Section 499 of the IPC, which defines defamation. 📜 Key Observations: Publications about the PFI cannot be considered defamatory as the group is a banned association without legal recognition. Defamation laws apply to a "person," and the PFI, being banned, no longer qualifies under this definition. 📰 The case arose from a defamation complaint by CP Mohammed Basheer, PFI's General Secretary, against Organiser, a publication that linked PFI to various unlawful activities. The Court found that the article merely reiterated publicly available information and quashed the defamation complaint. The Court's decision underscores the limits of defamation claims against entities deemed unlawful by the law. #KeralaHighCourt #DefamationLaw #PFIBan #LegalNews #JudiciaryUpdates

Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Mathura Idgah Dispute on December 9 The Supreme Court has expressed a prima facie view that the Shahi Masjid Idgah management committee should have appealed the Allahabad High Court single judge's order before a division bench, rather than approaching the SC directly. The case revolves around the August 1 decision, where the HC single judge declared 15 suits filed by Hindu parties—claiming the Idgah premises as the birthplace of Sri Krishna—maintainable. The court also ordered these suits to be clubbed for a joint trial. The Idgah committee argued the claims were barred by the Places of Worship Act, 1991, and a decades-old community agreement, but these pleas were rejected. During the hearing, CJI Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar suggested intra-court appeals could be a better initial approach. However, given the historical intricacies raised by the Idgah committee, the bench scheduled detailed arguments for December 9. #SupremeCourt #MathuraIdgahCase #LegalUpdate #SriKrishnaJanmabhoomi #IndianJudiciary #PlacesOfWorshipAct

Refusal to Marry Doesn't Amount to Abetment of Suicide: Supreme Court In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court has ruled that mere refusal to marry does not constitute abetment of suicide under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involved a man accused of cheating and abetment to suicide after a woman consumed poison following his refusal to marry her. The Court, however, found no evidence that the accused instigated or provoked the woman to take such a step. The Bench clarified: "Even assuming there was love between the parties, it is only a case of a broken relationship, which by itself does not amount to abetment of suicide. The refusal to marry is not a positive act with the intention to incite the crime." This ruling reaffirms the need for direct evidence to prove intent and underscores the importance of a fair trial. #SupremeCourt #LegalUpdate #AbetmentToSuicide #IndianPenalCode #RefusalToMarry #Justice