Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court, in its ruling on Arjun Patil v. Union of India & Ors., clarified two key aspects concerning foreign exchange law. It held that Indian currency involved in unauthorized foreign exchange dealings could be confiscated under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA). The Court also emphasized that appeals to the High Court under Section 35 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 (FEMA), are restricted solely to questions of law and do not extend to factual disputes. The judgment delineates the boundary between legal and factual considerations in foreign exchange enforcement cases.
Delhi HC: Alleging Physical Relationship Without Proof Doesn’t Constitute Rape, Acquits Man In Posco Case
The Delhi High Court has acquitted Rahul Bhupinder Verma, previously convicted under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri held that allegations of “physical relations” without clear details or supporting evidence cannot substantiate charges of rape or penetrative sexual assault. The court noted that terms like “physical relations” and “sambandh” must be explicitly defined to meet the legal standards. It further observed delays in filing the FIR, lack of medical or forensic proof, and absence of foundational facts for applying the statutory presumption under Section 29 of POCSO.
Supreme Court Records Assam’s Eviction Procedure For Reserved Forest Encroachments, Orders Status Quo Pending Due Process
The Supreme Court of India has disposed of a batch of civil appeals and writ petitions filed by Abdul Khalek and other residents of several villages situated within notified reserved…
Supreme Court Allows Condonation of Delay in Land Acquisition Appeals Under RFCTLARR Act, Clarifies Applicability of Limitation Act
The Supreme Court in The Deputy Commissioner and Special Land Acquisition Officer v. M/s S.V. Global Mill Limited and over 500 connected matters has held that appeals under Section 74…
Supreme Court: High Courts Cannot Direct Police To Follow Section 41A CrPC After Refusing To Quash FIR
In Practical Solutions Inc. v. State of Telangana, the Supreme Court held that when a High Court refuses to quash an FIR, it cannot indirectly protect the accused from arrest by directing the police to follow procedures like notice under Section 35(3) BNSS (earlier Section 41A CrPC) without proper reasons. The Court said such relief can be granted only after considering the merits and hearing the complainant. Relying on Neeharika Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, it set aside the High Court’s order and sent the case back for fresh consideration.
Subscribe to News
Get the latest sports news from NewsSite about world, sports and politics.
News
- Trending
- Featured Post
- Know The Law
- High Court
- Supreme Court
- Neuro Amicus Exclusive
Subscribe to Updates
Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.