Satish Law Agency

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before:- S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, JJ. Civil Appeal No.6659 of 2011. D/d. 20.1.2022. Arunachala Gounder (Dead) by Lrs. - Appellants Versus Ponnusamy and Ors. - Respondents For the Appellants :- Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, Mr. Ashish Kumar Upadhyay, Mr. Jaiyesh Bakhshi, Mr. Y. Lokesh, Mr. V. Sibi Kargil, Ms. V. Keerthana, Mr. Anubhav Chaturvedi, Advocates. For the Respondents :- Mr. K. K. Mani, Ms. T. Archana, Advocates. Hindu Succession Act, 1956 Sections 14 and 15. Cases Referred :- Bhagat Ram (dead) by LRs. v. Teja Singh (dead) by LRs., (2002) 1 SCC 210. Bhajya v. Gopikabai, [1978] 3 SCR 561. Bhaskar Trimbak Acharya v. Mahadev Ramji. Chotay Lall v. Chunnoo Lall, 1874 SCC OnLine Cal 10. Devidas v. Vithabai, 2008 (5) Mh.L.J. 296. Ghurpatari v. Smt. Sampati, AIR 1976 ALL 195. Gopal Singh v. Ujagar Singh, AIR 1954 SC 579. Katama Natchiar v. Rajah of Shivagunga. Katama Natchiar v. Srimut Rajah Mootoo Vijaya Raganadha Bodha Gooroo Sawmy Periya Odaya Taver...

Nobody can be deprived of property and right of residence otherwise in manner prescribed by law - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (SC)  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before:- Arun Mishra, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ. Writ Petition (Civil) No.4677 of 1985. D/d. 14.8.2020. M.C. Mehta - Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. - Respondents With Writ Petition (Civil) No.266 of 2006, Writ Petition (Civil) No.263 of 2006, Writ Petition (Civil) No.264 of 2006, Writ Petition (Civil) No.450 of 2006, Writ Petition (Civil) No.464 of 2006, Writ Petition (Civil) No.470 of 2006, Writ Petition (Civil) No.569 of 2006, Writ Petition (Civil) No.563 of 2006, Writ Petition (Civil) No.610 of 2006, Writ Petition (Civil) No.212 of 2008, Writ Petition (Civil) No.229 of 2008, Writ Petition (Civil) No.144 of 2009 and Special Leave Petition (C) No.33454 of 2018. For the Petitioner :- Petitioner-in-Person. For the Respondents :- Praveen Swarup, Abhay Kumar, Tejaswi Kumar Pra...

The National Green Tribunal on 15.05.2020 expressed concern over the repeated allegations of "tankers mafias" in the Capital New Delhi engaged in the extraction of groundwater without any remedial action by the authorities. The tribunal was hearing a plea filed by city resident Rakesh Kumar alleging that water filling plants were being operated without license and supplying contaminated water to the residents at the Kashmere Gate here. The tribunal observed that illegal extraction of groundwater was a criminal offence and directed the authorities to devise effective mechanism for preventing its withdrawal through unauthorised tubewells. A bench headed by NGT Chairperson Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel directed that a suitable mechanism for preventing extraction of ground water by illegal tubewells needs to be devised and wherever such illegalities found, prompt coercive measures must be taken.  "Illegal extraction of ground water is a criminal offence under the Env...

The Supreme Court was hearing the grievance of the petitioner that because of lock­down, the children are unable to interact with their parents even though they have visitation rights for the purpose. Supreme Court in its order dated 30.04.2020 in case titled  Tanuj Dhawan Vs. Court In Its Own Motion  has directed that Parents Having Visitation Rights To Maintain Contact With Children Via Electronic Means During Lockdown. In India, courts mostly award custody of minor children to mothers while granting visitation and vocational rights to fathers in a soured marriage.  A PIL in the Supreme Court on Thursday sought resolution of the difficulty faced by the parent who has not got custody of children. Petitioner V Srinivas Rao requested a bench of Justices N V Ramana, Sanjay K Kaul and BR Gavai to lay down guidelines for many parents who are unable to meet and interact with their children because of the lockdown. The bench, which was hearing the PIL through video-...