In this Bonus Episode of Law and Behold, I interview Mr. Abhishek Malhotra, Managing Partner of TMT Law Practice on different aspects of Gaming Laws. Tune in to discover the history of Gaming Laws, why Intellectual Property matters in Gaming, the role of data protection in Gaming and lots more. R. M. D. Chamarbaugwalla vs The Union Of India:  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/725224/ Madras HC Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V2i7MRord5ucSgsHhBkitNJe4X4CH_CV/view?usp=sharing Delhi HC Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xv1HUE4HFUvp7vULVd0YosIbTeEpwfb_/view?usp=sharing India United States Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty: https://drive.google.com/file/d/17MI7qV8LQpSXqqdKkUKTOVZhwIjEO986/view?usp=sharing --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

Prateek Gupta, was a student in VIth standard in St. Mary’s High School, Rezimental Banzar, Secunderabad, Hyderabad was kidnapped on his way back home. The Police arrested the kidnapper named Sheik Ahmed, and he was convicted under Section 364A IPC by the Sessions Court. Ahmed’s appeal before High Court was dismissed, but the Supreme Court found in his favour. Tune in to know why! Cause Title: SHAIK AHMED VERSUS STATE OF TELANGANA LNIND 2021 SC 180 Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.533 OF 2021 Court: Supreme Court of India Citation: LNIND 2021 SC 180 Instagram: lawandbehold --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

Leesama Joseph was appointed in 1996 to the post of Typist/clerk in the Police Department on compassionate grounds, after her brother had passed away during service. She undisputedly suffered from Post Polio Residual Paralysis (L) Lower Limb and her permanent disability had been assessed at 55%. Leesama was promoted to the position of Upper Division Clerk and Cashier, but she initiated a litigation claiming that she was entitled to reservation in promotion on account of her disability, and therefore should get her benefits from a back date, i.e. the date she became entitled for promotion.  The Kerala Administrative Tribunal declined her plea but the High Court decided in her favour.  Tune is as we see how the Supreme Court interpreted Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. We also explore if a legislative provision can become a fetter for implementation of the same legislation? Why is it so difficult to bring about a societal change, and how should a statute be interpreted to give out its most comprehensive meaning.  Cause Title: THE STATE OF KERALA & OTHERS VERSUS LEESAMMA JOSEPH Case Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 59 OF 2021 Court: Supreme Court of India Citation: LNIND 2021 SC 181 Instagram: lawandbehold --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

Government of India submitted an undertaking in 1994 to not deport Sri Lankan Tamils to Sri Lanka against their wishes. Does that undertaking still stand in 2021? Tune in as we unravel the case of Bhaskaran and his quest for a Swiss Visa! Cause Title: THAMARAI VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Case Number: H.C.P. NO.1456 OF 2020,CRL.M.P. NO.5133 OF 2020,W.P. NO.11754 OF 2021,W.M.P. NOS.12516 & 12517 OF 2021 Court: Madras High Court Citation: LNINDORD 2021 MAD 292 Instagram: lawandbehold --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

Does the exemption provision in Kerala Building Tax Act, 1975 apply to building housing nuns and students? Tune in as we discover why cases are decided so long after they are admitted. What are the different rules for interpreting tax laws, and the different methods to use them.  Cause Title: Government of Kerala and Another  Versus Mother Superior Adoration Convent  Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 202 of 2012 Court: Supreme Court of India  Citation: 2021 SCC OnLine SC 151 Instagram: lawandbehold --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

What is externment? What are the necessary features of an externment order. Tune in as we discover what the Bombay High Court said on this issue. Cause Title: Ranjit Kumar Veeran of Mumbai v. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Zone XII Case Number: Criminal Writ Petition 356 of 2021 Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay Citation: LNIND 2021 BOM 209 Instagram: lawandbehold --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

Even if the proven offence relates to dishonest conduct of the employee. There cannot be any hard and fast Rule that once the misconduct of theft is proved, the dismissal will be automatic.High Court can interfere with the decision of the Industrial Tribunal under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act only on limited grounds. It cannot substitute its decision for that of the Tribunal. It can interfere with the punishment, if it is found that that the decision of the Tribunal is perverse or one, which no man in his senses will take. Tune in, as we discover what the Jharkhand High Court did in the case of GC Patnayak. Cause Title: G.C. Patnayak Versus Telco Ltd., Telco Colony, P.O. & P.S. Telco, Rep. through its Managing Director Case Number: W.P.(L). No. 4707 of 2013 Court: High Court of Jharkhand Citation: [2021] 2 LLJ 396 Instagram: lawandbehold --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

Where the contract for no fault of the plaintiff becomes impossible, Section 21 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 enables award of compensation in lieu and substitution of the specific performance. So far as the determination of the amount of compensation, it has been held that the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act may safely be taken to be the measure of damages subject, of course, to the deduction therefrom of money value of the services, time and energy expended by the original land owner in pursuing the claims of compensation and the expenditure incurred by him in the litigation culminating in the award. Tune in as we discover how this principle played out in case of Ajit and Sukhbir. Cause Title: Sukhbir v. Ajit Singh Case Number: Civil Appeal 1653 of 2021 Court: Supreme Court Citation: LNIND 2021 SC 155 Link to Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sl8ZiqUzoWoNiierVKoJ6Oy4eYmb-tmY/view?usp=sharing Instagram: lawandbehold --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

“The presumption of innocence is the general law of the land as every man is presumed to be innocent unless proven to be guilty. Alternatively, certain statutory presumptions in relation to certain class of offences have been raised against the accused whereby the presumption of guilt prevails till the accused discharges his burden upon an onus being cast upon him under the law to prove himself to be innocent. Section 319 CrPC springs out of the doctrine judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur (Judge is condemned when guilty is acquitted) and this doctrine must be used as a beacon light while explaining the ambit and the spirit underlying the enactment of Section 319 CrPC. It is the duty of the court to do justice by punishing the real culprit. Where the investigating agency for any reason does not array one of the real culprits as an accused, the court is not powerless in calling the said accused to face trial. The question remains under what circumstances and at what stage should the court exercise its power as contemplated in Section 319 CrPC?” Tune in as we discover how the Supreme Court answered this question with respect to Section 319 CrPC. Cause Title: Sartaj Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. Case Number: Crl. Appeal 298-299 of 2021 Court: Supreme Court Citation: 2021 Indlaw SC 115 Link to Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10gq8ns_dJdIWO2jB1ZhUM-G1_RKf689g/view?usp=sharing Instagram: lawandbehold Link to FIR: https://drive.google.com/file/d/10gq8ns_dJdIWO2jB1ZhUM-G1_RKf689g/view?usp=sharing #Podcast #Legal #Criminal #SupremeCourt #CRPC #Haryana #Karnal #HighCourt #Chandigarh #TrialCourt #DistrictCourt #Law #Hindi #HindiPodcast #Podcaster #PodcasterIndia --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen Act, 2007 and Delhi Rules 2009 are welfare legislations. Senior Citizen Act and rules have been framed for the benefit and protection of senior citizens/Parents, so that they can spend their twilight years peacefully. The story of a father in law who was claimed of being thrown away from his own house. This and lots more in this episode of Law and Behold. Cause Title: MS. MAMTA VERSUS THE STATE (GNCT OF DELHI) AND OTHERS Case Number: W.P.(C) 5144/2021 Court: Delhi High Court Citation: LNIND 2021 DEL 877 Link to Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kj8bGB2o78sJwMjlhiloA4Y3hzMujZYm/view?usp=sharing Instagram: lawandbehold --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

Sonu, who is in custody under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), w.e.f. 29.11.2019 for possessing 18.44 grams of heroin (Deacetyl morphine), has now come up before High Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail, on the grounds that the quantity of contraband allegedly seized is intermediate quantity and does not restrict bail, because the quantity greater than 250 grams of heroin (Deacetyl morphine), falls in the category of the commercial quantity; hence the restrictions for bail imposed in S. 37 of NDPS Act, do not apply, and in the present case he is in custody for a considerable time. What does the Court do? Sonu Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh Case No : Cr. MP (M) No. 264 of 2021 Bench : Anoop Chitkara Citation : 2021 Indlaw HP 196 Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q-5-HLnI8YB-MFMBrRHpN-Yx5pv92rfO/view?usp=sharing Instagram: lawandbehold --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

A writ petition was filed by Naveen Singh before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench being for issuance of writ of mandamus to take action on the complaint made by him against Mahesh Singh for committing forgery in Court record. At that time, it was alleged that there was a fabrication in the court record by way of using whitener in Sessions Trial No. 89-A/01, State vs. Mahesh, under Sections 307, 504 and 506 IPC, Crime Case No.152/2000, Police Station Makhi, District Unnao. The court record was tampered with and instead of 'Mahesh', 'Ramesh' had been written. Considering the gravity of the matter, the High Court called for-the comments of the Learned Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court, Unnao. Mahesh was eventually chargesheeted but the High Court granted him bail. In this episode, we see as to how Supreme Court dealt with the question on bail in a crime allegedly involving tampering court records. Naveen Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh and another Criminal Appeal No. 320 of 2021 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2545 of 2020) 2021 Indlaw SC 116 Link to Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_Gk4iAJF1-Uxhz6UMGFi7mFKL3lxJ0sx/view?usp=sharing Instagram: lawandbehold --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

This episode discusses two important issues (i) the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; and (ii) whether the Court may refuse to make the reference under Section 11 where the claims are ex facie time-barred? Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another v Nortel Networks India Private Limited Civil Appeal Nos. 843-844 of 2021 2021 Indlaw SC 109 Link to Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pkfsc2-jm_62B7Pj1-E6b3_uCZlgv5Ef/view?usp=sharing Feedspot has enlisted Law and Behold in Top 20 Podcasts on Indian Law! To see the list and discover more click on https://blog.feedspot.com/indian_law_podcasts/ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

Jayashree was married to Shivaji Chintappa Patil in 1995. They were blessed with two children. On the fateful night of 23rd March 2003,  Shivaji and Jayashree went to sleep in their house. At the dawn of 24th March 2003, Ramchandra Chintappa gave a call to the Shivaji, so that they could go to their field for harvesting jawar crop. Shivaji opened the door and expressed his inability to accompany him to the field stating, that Jayashree had committed suicide by hanging. A trial follows and Shivaji is convicted for murder. The case eventually reaches Supreme Court. Join in, as we examine Circumstantial Evidence. Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2013 2021 Indlaw SC 87 Link to Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tRZfK0peY7flM5R94RjsoUK0L_VKCTlD/view?usp=sharing Feedspot has enlisted Law and Behold in Top 20 Podcasts on Indian Law! To see the list and discover more click on https://blog.feedspot.com/indian_law_podcasts/ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

The transaction relating to goods took place in Gujarat, the representations and meeting took place in Gujarat, the goods were shipped from a port in Gujarat, bill of ladings were released from Gujarat, the invoices were raised by the entity based out of Gujarat and the jurisdiction of such invoices were subject to the court of Gujarat. But the FIR was registered in Delhi! As per Section 177, CrPC, an inquiry and trial with respect of an offence is to be conducted by the court within whose local jurisdiction occurrence is said to have taken place, and the cause of action has arisen. Sections 178 and 179 are merely exceptions to the principle laid down in Section 177. Their scope should not be enlarged on analogous consideration. Ordinarily, the case is to be tried by the court in whose local limits the offence was committed, which in the present case is the state of Gujarat. In addition, for determination of offences alleged to have been committed under Section 406, IPC, Section 181, CrPC lays down that the jurisdiction lies with court where the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained. Join is as we discuss this and lots more with Mohit Negi. Ramesh Boghabhai Bhut v. State and Another Crl.M.C. 1616/2020 & Crl.M.A. 10307/2020 2020 SCC OnLine Del 1475 Link to Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1brwFF_SlpjMfnJZK9jnISO3i61JpT086/view?usp=sharing https://www.instagram.com/lawandbehold/ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

Joginder and Karamveer who are the residents of Village Sarsad, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat encroached upon the panchayat land and constructed the houses. The Government of Haryana framed a policy regarding sale of panchayat land in unauthorised possession. Joginder and Karamveer submitted the application before the competent authority along with the resolution of the concerned panchayat and requested to sell the lands occupied by them illegally and unauthorizedly, but the same was rejected. The case eventually reached Supreme Court. This and lots more in this episode of Law and Behold. Case Name: Joginder and another v State of Haryana and others Citation: 2021 Indlaw SC 37 Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RjecXawFtdiDXpZtgMMe8o32nKXZ7gsA/view?usp=sharing  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandbehold/  --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

Professor TJ Joseph while framing the Malayalam question paper for the second semester B.Com. examination at the Newman College, Thodupuzha, had included a question which was considered objectionable against a particular religion by certain sections of society. Prosecution alleged that Najeeb in association with other members of the Popular Front of India (PFI), decided to avenge this purported act of blasphemy. On 04.07.2010 at about 8AM, a group of people with a common object, attacked the victim-professor while he was returning home with his mother and sister after attending Sunday mass at a local Church. Over the course of the attack, members of the PFI forcefully intercepted the victim's car, restrained him and chopped-off his right palm with choppers, knives, and a small axe. Country-made bombs were also hurled at bystanders to create panic and terror in their minds and to prevent them from coming to the aid of the victim. Najeeb was arrested on 10.04.2015 and has been in jail since then. The Kerala High Court granted him bail, but the Supreme Court stayed that Order. Did Najeeb finally get bail from Supreme Court? What are the contours of bail jurisprudence in special laws such as UAPA. This and lots more in Episode 2 of Law and Behold! Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2021 2021 Indlaw SC 30 Link to Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16MLTsjbBuQ3fXacA5_tCEam-I90aQ4ho/view?usp=sharing https://www.instagram.com/lawandbehold/ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

The institution of Advocate on Record is specific to the Supreme Court of India. The question which is raised in the present case is whether an Advocate-on-Record can have the entry in the Advocate-on-Record Register in the form of his style of carrying on the profession instead of Siddharth Murarka, as Law chamber of Siddharth Murarka? In Re: Advocate on Record Includes A Proprietary Firm Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1107/2020 2021 Indlaw SC 21 Link to Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16MLTsjbBuQ3fXacA5_tCEam-I90aQ4ho/view?usp=sharing --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

Welcome to Season 2 of Law and Behold! A weekly podcast full of facts, fun and law. Presenting to you the latest and most interesting judgments from Courts all over India.  Instagram: lawandbehold --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message

The Police says that it recovered 15.07 grams of Heroin from the flat of Suresh Thakur. He was arrested and put into jail. The drugs were apparently purchased from a foreigner in Delhi. But Suresh is himself a drug addict. In this season finale, we see how the Himachal Pradesh High Court decided Suresh’s bail application. Judgment-Suresh Thakur v State of Himachal Pradesh Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Belj4N7zxndCzcQmyH9cxONixoIpgbQI/view?usp=sharing Citation: 2020 Indlaw HP 485 Twitter: https://twitter.com/law_behold Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandbehold/ --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/lawandbehold/message