Jagrana shamsher associates -top lawyer &solicitors highcourt lucknow u.p.

09/02/2026

In a crucial reminder on fair trial rights, the Calcutta High Court held that an accused cannot be made to suffer for the casual or deficient cross-examination conducted by earlier counsel.

Even in sensitive POCSO cases, procedural safeguards for victims cannot override the accused’s right to an effective and meaningful defence. Justice, the Court said, must not be reduced to a technical casualty.

09/02/2026

The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh recently observed that a public prosecutor has no independent authority to seek police custody of an accused (police remand) unless such a request originates from the investigating agency itself [State of J&K vs Dhanwanter Singh].

Justice Sanjay Parihar made the observation while dismissing a criminal revision plea filed by the State challenging a trial court's refusal to allow the prosecutor's plea for the remand of certain accused in a 2005 murder case to the police.

“The record shows that the investigating agency neither had sought supplementary investigation nor requested police custody of the respondents. The Public Prosecutor, without such a request, had no independent authority to seek police remand under Section 167 CrPC,” the High Court observed.

09/02/2026

In a suit where the ex*****on of the Will was specifically denied by the defendants; subsequently, the sole attesting witness examined by the plaintiffs failed to support the factum of attestation. The Court observed that the plaintiffs’ failure to examine the other available attesting witness was fatal to their case, clarifying that Section 71 of the Evidence Act is merely an enabling provision and cannot be invoked to bypass the mandatory rigor of Section 68 when a witness is available but not produced. Furthermore, the Court rejected the contention that long enjoyment of the suit properties or the alleged acting upon the Will by the parties could dispense with the statutory burden of proving formal ex*****on. Highlighting several unresolved suspicious circumstances—most notably an unexplained delay of over 40 years in seeking probate—the Court held that the propounders had failed to clear the shadows surrounding the document’s validity. Determining that the statutory burden remained undischarged, the Madras High Court in AIROnline 2026 MAD 102 held that the plaintiffs were disentitled to any relief and concluded that the testamentary suit was dismissed and the Letters of Administration was refused.

08/02/2026

08/02/2026

Shamsher Yadav Jagrana मत पत्र क्रम संख्या 269
#प्रत्याशी बार काउंसिल ऑफ उ प्र

27/01/2026

17/12/2025

17/12/2025

शीत कालीन अवकाश होने के पूर्व आज पश्चिम उत्तर प्रदेश के दौरा पूर्ण के बाद माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में अधिवक्ता साथियों से जनसंपर्क कर मतपत्र क्रमांक संख्या #269 मत एवं समर्थन की अपील की
#शमशेर_यादव #बार_काउंसिल_ऑफ_उत्तरप्रदेश #सबको_देखा_बारबार_हमको_देखें_एक_बार

14/12/2025

#शमशेर_यादव #बार_काउंसिल_ऑफ_उत्तरप्रदेश #सबको_देखा_बारबार_हमको_देखें_एक_बार fans

14/12/2025

सिविल विधि—टाइटल सूट—प्रतिकूल-कब्ज़ा—दावा/लिखित-कथन में अभिवचन (pleading) का अभाव—प्रतिकूल-कब्ज़ा का दावा विशिष्ट तथ्यात्मक प्रतिपादनों पर आधारित होता है, जिन्हें वाद-पत्र (Plaint) अथवा लिखित-उत्तर (Written Statement) में स्पष्ट रूप से अभिव्यक्त किया जाना आवश्यक है तथा जिन पर विचार हेतु वाद-बिंदु (Issue) निर्धारित होना चाहिए—ऐसे आधारभूत अभिवचनों के बिना, प्रतिकूल-कब्ज़े का प्रश्न अपीलीय स्तर पर प्रथम बार उठाया नहीं जा सकता—1₹दावेदार को प्रतिकूल-कब्ज़े के प्रारम्भ होने के समय, उसका स्वरूप, निरन्तरता एवं प्रतिकूल/विरोधात्मक बने रहना तथा उसकी सार्वजनिक जानकारी/प्रसिद्धि (Notoriety), इन सभी तथ्यों को विशिष्ट रूप से कथित एवं सिद्ध करना अनिवार्य है—वाद-पत्र या लिखित-उत्तर में ऐसे मूलभूत विवरणों के अभाव में प्रतिकूल-कब्ज़े सम्बन्धी कोई मुद्दा निर्धारित अथवा अनुमानित नहीं किया जा सकता—किसी पक्षकार को ऐसे प्रकरण पर सफलता प्राप्त नहीं हो सकती जो उसने अपने वाद में कथित ही नहीं किया हो—यह सिद्धान्त secundum allegata et probata (जो आरोपित हो वही सिद्ध होना चाहिए) के अनुरूप है।