Newsletter
Dissolution of Partnership Firm due to the direction by court
Introduction A partnership firm will be registered under the Indian Partnership Act of 1932, and the provisions of this Act will apply to all such firms. Dissolution occurs in two categories- the dissolution of the partnership and the dissolution of the partnership...
DEATH PENALTY: A NECESSARY EVIL?
24.05.2024 DEATH PENALTY: A NECESSARY EVIL? Introduction Capital punishment, also called the death penalty, refers to the most extreme of all sanctions imposed by law by a state against an individual for having committed a crime. This final penalty signifies that the...
Foreclosure Charges
Do High courts have rule-making power? If so, what are its limitations?
Yes, High courts have rule-making power about proceedings, and other matters connected toit, which is provided for by Article 225 of the Constitution of India, and Section 28 of theRTI Act empowers the Chief Justice of the High Court to make rules and carry out...
Same-Sex Adoption and Parental Rights in India: Legal Gaps and Social Realities
This post explores the evolving landscape of same-sex adoption and parental rights in India. While LGBTQ+ individuals may adopt as singles under existing laws, same-sex couples face legal ambiguity and institutional resistance due to the lack of recognition of same-sex marriage. The article examines key statutes like the Juvenile Justice Act and HAMA, judicial developments, and recent policy debates. It also highlights the lived experiences of queer families and the urgent need for inclusive legal reform.
Setting Aside of Arbitral Award: Legal Grounds and Procedure
This post examines the legal framework for setting aside an arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It outlines the limited and specific grounds on which a party may challenge an award, including incapacity of parties, invalidity of the arbitration agreement, lack of proper notice, and violation of public policy. The article also discusses procedural aspects such as limitation periods, judicial scrutiny, and the balance between finality of arbitration and fairness in adjudication
Section 156 CrPC: Police Powers to Investigate Cognizable Offences
Section 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 empowers police officers to investigate cognizable offences without prior approval from a Magistrate. This provision forms the backbone of criminal investigation procedures in India. The post explains the scope of this section, its procedural safeguards, and its relationship with Sections 154 and 157. It also highlights the role of the Magistrate under Section 190 in directing investigations and addresses common legal challenges related to unauthorized or excessive police action.
Doctrine of Eclipse and Severability: Safeguarding Constitutional Integrity
This post explores two pivotal doctrines in constitutional law: the Doctrine of Eclipse and the Doctrine of Severability. The Doctrine of Eclipse addresses the temporary inoperability of laws that conflict with fundamental rights, allowing them to revive if the conflict is later resolved. The Doctrine of Severability ensures that unconstitutional portions of a statute can be removed without invalidating the entire law. Together, these doctrines uphold the supremacy of the Constitution while preserving legislative intent wherever possible.
Doctrine of Colorable Legislation and Retrospective Laws: Limits of Legislative Power
This post explores two critical constitutional doctrines that define the boundaries of legislative authority in India: the Doctrine of Colorable Legislation and the Doctrine of Retrospective Legislation. It examines how these principles prevent legislative overreach—whether by disguising unauthorized actions under lawful guise or by enacting laws with backward effect. Through key case law and constitutional interpretation, the article analyzes how courts scrutinize legislative intent and uphold the rule of law.
M. Ashok Kumar & Ors. vs. The Theyarayanagar Fund Ltd
This post outlines the facts of a civil dispute involving Mr. M. Ashok Kumar and Mr. A. Mallika, who allege coercion and deceptive practices by The Theyarayanagar Fund Ltd. in connection with a ₹7.2 lakh loan. The plaintiffs claim they were misled into signing documents and pressured to attach their property without justification. The case raises important questions about financial ethics, consumer protection, and the legal boundaries of loan recovery practices.
Newsletter
Receive a regular, solution-focused brief from Nathan & Associates, delivering reliable legal insights and clarity across diverse practice areas. Our newsletter provides expert analysis on current legal trends and information crucial for protecting your rights and interests.