Log In
  • India
  • UK & Ireland
CaseMine Logo
Please enter at least 3 characters.
Parallel Search is an AI-driven legal research functionality that uses natural language understanding to find conceptually relevant case law, even without exact keyword matches.
Hi, I'm AMICUS. Your GPT powered virtual legal assistant. Let's chat.
  • Parallel Search NEW
  • CaseIQ
  • AMICUS (Powered by GPT)
  • Federal
    U.S. Supreme Court
    Federal Circuit
    1st Circuit
    2d Circuit
    3d Circuit
    4th Circuit
    5th Circuit
    6th Circuit
    7th Circuit
    8th Circuit
    9th Circuit
    10th Circuit
    11th Circuit
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
    Board of Immigration Appeals
    Special Courts
    Bankruptcy
  • State
    Alabama
    Alaska
    Arkansas
    Arizona
    California
    Colorado
    Connecticut
    Delaware
    District Of Columbia
    Florida
    Georgia
    Guam
    Hawaii
    Iowa
    Idaho
    Illinois
    Indiana
    Kansas
    Kentucky
    Louisiana
    Massachusetts
    Maryland
    Maine
    Michigan
    Minnesota
    Missouri
    Mississippi
    Montana
    Nebraska
    North Carolina
    North Dakota
    New Hampshire
    New Jersey
    Northern Mariana Islands
    New Mexico
    Nevada
    New York
    Ohio
    Oklahoma
    Oregon
    Pennsylvania
    Puerto Rico
    Rhode Island
    South Carolina
    South Dakota
    Tennessee
    Texas
    Utah
    Virginia
    Vermont
    Washington
    Wisconsin
    West Virginia
    Wyoming
Log In Sign Up US Judgments
  • India
  • UK & Ireland

Alert

How is this helpful for me?

  • Creating your profile on CaseMine allows you to build your network with fellow lawyers and prospective clients. Once you create your profile, you will be able to:
    1. Claim the judgments where you have appeared by linking them directly to your profile and maintain a record of your body of work.
    2. Interact directly with CaseMine users looking for advocates in your area of specialization.
  • Creating a unique profile web page containing interviews, posts, articles, as well as the cases you have appeared in, greatly enhances your digital presence on search engines such Google and Bing, resulting in increased client interest.
  • The cases linked on your profile facilitate Casemine's artificial intelligence engine in recommending you to potential clients who might be interested in availing your services for similar matters.

  Know more  

Create your profile now
  • Commentaries
  • Judgments
  • Acts

All High Courts Case Commentaries

Colleges Excluded from CPCB Petrol Pump Distance Criteria: Kerala High Court Sets Textual Limits on PESO’s Approval Powers

Colleges Excluded from CPCB Petrol Pump Distance Criteria: Kerala High Court Sets Textual Limits on PESO’s Approval Powers

Date: Aug 19, 2025
Colleges Excluded from CPCB Petrol Pump Distance Criteria: Kerala High Court Sets Textual Limits on PESO’s Approval Powers Case: Bindhu Kuniparambath v. The Joint Chief Controller of Explosives, 2025...
Prosecution Lapses Are Not a Passport to Bail: Delhi High Court Prioritizes Merits and Victim Testimony in POCSO/BNS Cases

Prosecution Lapses Are Not a Passport to Bail: Delhi High Court Prioritizes Merits and Victim Testimony in POCSO/BNS Cases

Date: Aug 19, 2025
Prosecution Lapses Are Not a Passport to Bail: Delhi High Court Prioritizes Merits and Victim Testimony in POCSO/BNS Cases Introduction In Keshav Kumar @ Tushar v. State (GNCT) of Delhi and Anr....
Unconditional Apology Without Proof of Intent Suffices to Purge Criminal Contempt: Kerala High Court Clarifies the Threshold under Rule 14(a) of the 1988 Rules

Unconditional Apology Without Proof of Intent Suffices to Purge Criminal Contempt: Kerala High Court Clarifies the Threshold under Rule 14(a) of the 1988 Rules

Date: Aug 19, 2025
Unconditional Apology Without Proof of Intent Suffices to Purge Criminal Contempt: Kerala High Court Clarifies the Threshold under Rule 14(a) of the 1988 Rules Introduction In SUO MOTU v. Adv. K M...
The “Reasonable Nexus” Doctrine: Kerala High Court Clarifies Timing of Vehicle Seizure under Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961

The “Reasonable Nexus” Doctrine: Kerala High Court Clarifies Timing of Vehicle Seizure under Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961

Date: Aug 19, 2025
The “Reasonable Nexus” Doctrine: Kerala High Court Clarifies Timing of Vehicle Seizure under Section 52 of the Kerala Forest Act, 1961 1. Introduction In A.M. Noushad v. State of Kerala (2025 KER...
No Inherent Power of Review: Bombay High Court Clarifies that Labour Courts Cannot Entertain Delay-Condonation Applications for Non-Maintainable Reviews

No Inherent Power of Review: Bombay High Court Clarifies that Labour Courts Cannot Entertain Delay-Condonation Applications for Non-Maintainable Reviews

Date: Aug 19, 2025
No Inherent Power of Review: Bombay High Court Clarifies that Labour Courts Cannot Entertain Delay-Condonation Applications for Non-Maintainable Reviews 1. Introduction This commentary examines the...
“Silent Desertion” as Conclusive Proof of Animus Deserendi: A Commentary on Anil Kumar Sonmani v. Shradha Tiwari (2025)

“Silent Desertion” as Conclusive Proof of Animus Deserendi: A Commentary on Anil Kumar Sonmani v. Shradha Tiwari (2025)

Date: Aug 19, 2025
“Silent Desertion” as Conclusive Proof of Animus Deserendi A Detailed Commentary on Anil Kumar Sonmani @ Anil Swami v. Smt. Shradha Tiwari (2025 CGHC 41430-DB) 1. Introduction In August 2025, the...
No Copyright in Film/Web-Series Titles; Producers’ Association Title Registrations Bind Only Members: Bombay High Court in Saberwal v. Star India

No Copyright in Film/Web-Series Titles; Producers’ Association Title Registrations Bind Only Members: Bombay High Court in Saberwal v. Star India

Date: Aug 19, 2025
No Copyright in Film/Web-Series Titles; Producers’ Association Title Registrations Bind Only Members: Bombay High Court in Saberwal v. Star India Court: Bombay High Court (Ordinary Original Civil...
“The Availability-of-Grounds Test” – Madras High Court Narrows the Scope for Successive Habeas Corpus Petitions

“The Availability-of-Grounds Test” – Madras High Court Narrows the Scope for Successive Habeas Corpus Petitions

Date: Aug 19, 2025
“The Availability-of-Grounds Test” – Madras High Court Narrows the Scope for Successive Habeas Corpus Petitions 1. Introduction Mirtunaj Kumar v. State of Tamil Nadu (2025 MHC 2029) presented the...
“Exceptional Circumstances” Gatekeeping for Direct High Court Bail under Section 483 BNSS: Concurrent Jurisdiction Clarified, Hierarchical Prudence Reinforced

“Exceptional Circumstances” Gatekeeping for Direct High Court Bail under Section 483 BNSS: Concurrent Jurisdiction Clarified, Hierarchical Prudence Reinforced

Date: Aug 19, 2025
“Exceptional Circumstances” Gatekeeping for Direct High Court Bail under Section 483 BNSS: Concurrent Jurisdiction Clarified, Hierarchical Prudence Reinforced Introduction In DR. AMIT KUMAR SINGAL v....
“Normally” Means “Directory”: Bombay High Court Affirms that the Three-Month Time Limit for NSE Arbitrations Is Indicative, Not Mandatory – A Commentary on Bhanuchandra J. Doshi v. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. (2025)

“Normally” Means “Directory”: Bombay High Court Affirms that the Three-Month Time Limit for NSE Arbitrations Is Indicative, Not Mandatory – A Commentary on Bhanuchandra J. Doshi v. Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd. (2025)

Date: Aug 15, 2025
“Normally” Means “Directory”: Bombay High Court Affirms that the Three-Month Time Limit for NSE Arbitrations Is Indicative, Not Mandatory – A Commentary on Bhanuchandra J. Doshi v. Motilal Oswal...
Custodial Absence and Back-Pay After Acquittal – The Harbajan Singh Rule

Custodial Absence and Back-Pay After Acquittal – The Harbajan Singh Rule

Date: Aug 15, 2025
Custodial Absence and Back-Pay After Acquittal – The Harbajan Singh Rule 1. Introduction Harbajan Singh v. Superintendent of Police, Ajmer (2025 RJ-JP 31247) is a seminal pronouncement of the...
Pendency of Appeal and Non‑Filing of Bail Are No Bar to Parole: Karnataka High Court Reinforces Reasoned, Manual‑Compliant Parole Decisions

Pendency of Appeal and Non‑Filing of Bail Are No Bar to Parole: Karnataka High Court Reinforces Reasoned, Manual‑Compliant Parole Decisions

Date: Aug 15, 2025
Pendency of Appeal and Non‑Filing of Bail Are No Bar to Parole: Karnataka High Court Reinforces Reasoned, Manual‑Compliant Parole Decisions Case: Eshwaramma W/o Naganagowda v. State of Karnataka...
Humanitarian Exception to Age Bar in Compassionate Appointments: Karnataka High Court authorizes appointment of widow beyond upper age limit and urges humane policy reform

Humanitarian Exception to Age Bar in Compassionate Appointments: Karnataka High Court authorizes appointment of widow beyond upper age limit and urges humane policy reform

Date: Aug 15, 2025
Humanitarian Exception to Age Bar in Compassionate Appointments: Karnataka High Court authorizes appointment of widow beyond upper age limit and urges humane policy reform Introduction This...

        Parole as a Protected Article 21 Right: Karnataka High Court
        Outlaws “Mechanical” Police Reports & Clarifies the Distinction
        Between Parole and Suspension of Sentence

Parole as a Protected Article 21 Right: Karnataka High Court Outlaws “Mechanical” Police Reports & Clarifies the Distinction Between Parole and Suspension of Sentence

Date: Aug 15, 2025
Parole as a Protected Article 21 Right: Karnataka High Court Outlaws “Mechanical” Police Reports & Clarifies the Distinction Between Parole and Suspension of Sentence Chotti Bee w/o Syed Rasool v....
Kerala High Court Upholds Differential Property-Tax Exemption for Government and Aided Schools

Kerala High Court Upholds Differential Property-Tax Exemption for Government and Aided Schools

Date: Aug 15, 2025
Kerala High Court Upholds Differential Property-Tax Exemption for Government and Aided Schools 1. Introduction Mar Baselios School v. State of Kerala (decided on 14 August 2025) is a clubbed...
Extending Benefit of Doubt in Age-Determination: Ossification Evidence Prevails over Unsubstantiated Birth Records — Commentary on Deul Kharole v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

Extending Benefit of Doubt in Age-Determination: Ossification Evidence Prevails over Unsubstantiated Birth Records — Commentary on Deul Kharole v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025)

Date: Aug 15, 2025
Extending Benefit of Doubt in Age-Determination: Ossification Evidence Prevails over Unsubstantiated Birth Records — Commentary on Deul Kharole v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2025) Introduction In Deul...
Execution Against a Deceased Judgment‑Debtor: No Abatement, But Impleading Legal Representatives Is Mandatory—Ex Parte Status Irrelevant

Execution Against a Deceased Judgment‑Debtor: No Abatement, But Impleading Legal Representatives Is Mandatory—Ex Parte Status Irrelevant

Date: Aug 14, 2025
Execution Against a Deceased Judgment‑Debtor: No Abatement, But Impleading Legal Representatives Is Mandatory—Ex Parte Status Irrelevant Case: Ganga Jogta v. Nand Lal (deceased) through LRs, CMPMO...
Mitigation Inquiry as a Precondition to Death Penalty and the Limits of Section 84 IPC: Commentary on State of Odisha v. Niranjan Mallik (Orissa High Court, 12 Aug 2025)

Mitigation Inquiry as a Precondition to Death Penalty and the Limits of Section 84 IPC: Commentary on State of Odisha v. Niranjan Mallik (Orissa High Court, 12 Aug 2025)

Date: Aug 13, 2025
Mitigation Inquiry as a Precondition to Death Penalty and the Limits of Section 84 IPC Commentary on State of Odisha v. Niranjan Mallik, DSREF No. 2 of 2024 & JCRLA No. 62 of 2024 (Orissa High Court,...
Mere Delivery or Billing in Mumbai Does Not Confer Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court on Trade Mark Suits, Section 134(2) TM Act and Section 20 CPC

Mere Delivery or Billing in Mumbai Does Not Confer Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court on Trade Mark Suits, Section 134(2) TM Act and Section 20 CPC

Date: Aug 12, 2025
Mere Delivery or Billing in Mumbai Does Not Confer Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court on Trade Mark Suits, Section 134(2) TM Act and Section 20 CPC Introduction This commentary examines the Bombay High...
Reaffirming the “Conscious-Possession” Doctrine for Inadvertent Ammunition: Commentary on Harjeet Singh Talwar v. State (2025 DHC 6790)

Reaffirming the “Conscious-Possession” Doctrine for Inadvertent Ammunition: Commentary on Harjeet Singh Talwar v. State (2025 DHC 6790)

Date: Aug 12, 2025
Reaffirming the “Conscious-Possession” Doctrine for Inadvertent Ammunition Commentary on Harjeet Singh Talwar v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) 2025 DHC 6790 Citation: 2025 DHC 6790, Delhi High Court...
Previous   Next
CaseMine Logo

Know us better!

  • Request a Demo
  • Watch Casemine overview Videos

Company

  • About Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms
  • Careers
  • Columns
  • Contact Us

Help

  • Pricing
  • Help & Support
  • Features
  • Workflow
  • CaseMine API
  • CaseMine's Bespoke AI Solutions
  • Judge Signup
  • Student Signup

CaseMine Tools

  • CaseIQ
  • Judgment Search
  • Parallel Search
  • AttorneyIQ
  • Browse Cases

© 2023 Gauge Data Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Summary

Alert