Month: July 2019

President Calls For Translating Verdicts Of High Courts In Local Languages

Source: ndtv.com Chennai:  President Ram Nath Kovind Friday advocated translating high courts’ judgements into vernacular languages so that people are able to understand them. “Over the years, our understanding of law and its applications has become larger and sophisticated,” he said addressing a special convocation of the state-run Tamil Nadu Dr Ambedkar Law University. Yet,

Supreme Court allows calling off rescue operations for trapped miners in Meghalaya

Source: hindustantimes.com The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Meghalaya government to call off one of India’s longest rescue operations to retrieve the remains of 13 coal miners who were trapped in an illegally operated rat-hole coal mine at Khloo Ryngksan in East Jaintia Hills district since December 13 last year. The mine had flooded

Why Delhi High Court used a Spider-Man line for Amazon and Flipkart

Source: theprint.in New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has restrained e-commerce platforms Amazon, Flipkart, Healthkart and Snapdeal from featuring and selling products belonging to Amway without its consent. A similar order has been issued against Amazon with respect to the products of Modicare and Oriflame. Authoring the judgment, Justice Pratibha M. Singh quoted the popular

National Lok Adalat at Lamphel

Source:e-pao.net Under the guidelines of the National Legal Services Authority, Manipur State Legal Services Authority (MASLSA) organized the second National Lok Adalat for the year, 2019 on Saturday, the 13th July, 2019 at Lamphel Court Complex for Imphal East & Imphal West districts. Various pending cases before the courts as well as pre-litigation matters are

OSD appt: ENSF reacts to NPMSA statement

Source:nagalandpost.com Taking cognisance of the statement issued by Nagaland Planning Machinery Service Association (NPMSA) and published in local dailies on Sunday that named one of its bona fide members, Eastern Naga Students’ Federation (ENSF) has asserted that the former had no legal right or moral authority to question the legally justified decision of the State