LawLoveLegal

INTRODUCTION The Jharkhand High Court has imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000 on officials of the State Water Resources Department for filing what it termed a “most bogus and frivolous” civil review petition, observing that the petition was filed with the oblique motive of delaying execution of an arbitral award payable to a Bihar-based construction company, M/s R.K. Construction Private Limited. The Court directed that the fine be paid personally by the concerned officials and deposited with the Jharkhand State Legal Services Authority (JHALSA). CASE BACKGROUND AND ARBITRATION AWARD The dispute arose out of civil works carried out in Jamshedpur under the Subarnarekha Multipurpose Project. The construction company was awarded approximately ₹2.5 crore through arbitration, following a dispute with the Water Resources Department over unpaid dues for executed works. After the arbitral award, the company initiated execution proceedings before the competent court to recover the awarded amount. Durin...

Case Background: Delay in Release Despite Supreme Court Bail Order The Supreme Court strongly criticised the Uttar Pradesh prison authorities for delaying the release of an undertrial Muslim accused, who had been granted bail under an anti-conversion case, but continued to remain in custody for almost one month after the order. The bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice KV Viswanathan described the situation as “very sad” and “unfortunate”, observing that a citizen’s liberty was curtailed solely on account of a trivial technical objection raised by jail authorities. The Court held that even though all relevant details — identity of the accused, case number, offences, and police station — were clearly mentioned, the accused was not released merely because the order did not mention a sub-clause of Section 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021. Facts of the Case: Bail, Release Order, and Continued Detention The accused was facing trial ...

 The Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed Bollywood actor Shilpa Shetty and her businessman husband Raj Kundra to deposit ₹60 crore with the court registry if they wanted their plea to travel abroad to be considered. The direction came during the hearing of a petition filed by the couple challenging the look-out circulars (LOCs) issued against them by the Economic Offences Wing (EOW) of the Mumbai Police. EOW’s Look-Out Circular and the ₹60.48-Crore Cheating Case The case stems from a ₹60.48-crore cheating complaint linked to the couple’s now-defunct online retail venture, Best Deal TV Pvt. Ltd. The EOW had issued look-out circulars on September 5, 2025 , preventing Shetty and Kundra from leaving India while the investigation was ongoing. The LOCs were based on a complaint filed by Deepak Kothari , a city-based businessman and director of Lotus Capital Financial Services , who alleged that Shetty and Kundra had diverted investor funds for personal use between 2015 an...

Madhya Pradesh Officials Face Contempt Charges  Over Wage Dispute The Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has taken stern action against five senior Madhya Pradesh government officials for failing to comply with court orders regarding wage parity for contractual employees. This decision comes after a contempt petition highlighted their disregard for a previous court directive. Contempt of Court: A Brief Overview Contempt of court occurs when an individual or entity disobeys or disrespects a court order. In India, contempt of court is governed by the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The Act defines two types of contempt: civil and criminal. Civil contempt involves the wilful disobedience of a court order, while criminal contempt includes acts that scandalize or lower the authority of the court.  Background of the Case The issue began when Parthan Pillai, a 48-year-old Computer Programmer, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Pillai sought...