Ujjwal Tiwari

Ujjwal Tiwari यतो धर्मः ततो जयः�
"Law Chambers of Ujjwal Tiwari" is a law firm; 𝓒𝓸𝓷𝓽𝓪𝓬𝓽 𝓤𝓼 : 8112416265

25/06/2026

They said ‘enjoy your vacation,’ but my calendar said ‘virtual hearing at 11 AM.’ ⚖️✈️”

22/06/2026

Taking a blessed break from the legal hustle to seek the ultimate guidance. Jai Mata Di. ✨

17/06/2026

𝐓𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦 𝐁𝐚𝐧 ; “𝐓𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦” 𝐦𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐝 𝐃𝐞𝐥𝐡𝐢 𝐇𝐢𝐠𝐡 𝐂𝐨𝐮𝐫𝐭 𝐚𝐠𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐬𝐭 𝐛𝐚𝐧 !!

13/06/2026

Varanasi District Judge Chair : Woman sat in district judge’s chair, banged gavel, shouted “Order! Order!” and declared “Today I’m the judge, present evidence.” Police detained her. The act itself is sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 – Criminal Contempt:
Sitting on the presiding officer’s chair satisfies the threshold of an act that “scandalises or tends to scandalise, or lowers or tends to lower the authority of, any court” and “obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice.”

Section 204 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) (formerly Section 170 of the IPC) – Personating a Public Servant: This section applies if someone pretends to hold a particular public office and, in that assumed character, does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office.

The Allahabad High Court on Monday stayed a May 2026 order of the Kanpur Nagar Nigam by which the employees of the Life ...
10/06/2026

The Allahabad High Court on Monday stayed a May 2026 order of the Kanpur Nagar Nigam by which the employees of the Life Insurance Corporation (LIC) were requisitioned for census duty.

Differing from the Single Judge’s view, the division bench noted that while the State Government may call upon corporate staff to assist in census operations, such requisition “can only be for the purpose of census operations within the premises of such establishment and not outside the premises,” as per Section 7(c) of the Census Act, 1948. A bench of Justice Salil Kumar Rai and Justice Swarupama Chaturvedi found the impugned directive prima facie bad in Law.

08/06/2026

“𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐬𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐚𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐲” 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐰𝐞𝐫 𝐰𝐫𝐭 𝐒𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝟏𝟑𝟖 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐈 𝐀𝐜𝐭 !!

The Supreme Court has observed that when the company authorizes a particular individual to sign, issue cheques on the company’s behalf, including the responsibility of making a payment, then such an individual would be treated as a ‘drawer’, attracting liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

SECTION 141

The Rule: Every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to the company for the conduct of its business, shall be deemed guilty along with the company.

Even if a director, manager, secretary, or officer was not directly “in charge of and responsible for” the day-to-day business under sub-section (1), they can still be held liable if it is proved that the offence was committed with their:
1- Consent (explicit approval)
2- Connivance (tacit or secret permission)
3- Neglect (culpable failure to exercise due care)

Cause Title: K RANGANAYAKULU VERSUS STATE OF TELANGANA & ORS.

𝐏𝐫𝐞-𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲 : Supreme Court
08/06/2026

𝐏𝐫𝐞-𝐌𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩𝐬 𝐚𝐫𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐦𝐦𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐨𝐝𝐚𝐲 : Supreme Court

05/06/2026

Public Servant Liable if subordinate has taken “BRIBE” on behalf of him !!

Case Details: THE STATE BY LOKAYUKTHA POLICE v. SRI K. RANGAYYA & ANR|SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.5245 of 2025

The Supreme Court has ruled that a public servant need not personally demand or receive a bribe to attract liability under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Holding that the provision covers attempts to obtain an undue advantage through third parties and for the benefit of another person, the Court restored a corruption FIR against a Karnataka Police Sub-Inspector accused of seeking money through subordinate officials

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh set aside a Karnataka High Court judgment that had quashed an FIR against a Police Sub-Inspector accused of indirectly seeking a bribe through his subordinates.

04/06/2026

𝐀𝐝𝐯𝐨𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐬 𝐜𝐚𝐧 𝐮𝐬𝐞 𝐀𝐈 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐝𝐫𝐚𝐟𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 !!

𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙧𝙖𝙛𝙩 𝙍𝙚𝙜𝙪𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙐𝙨𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝘼𝙧𝙩𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙄𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙚𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙞𝙣 𝘾𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩𝙨, 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟔

The draft regulations expressly permit AI to be used for a range of judicial and administrative functions, subject to approval and human supervision.

𝑨𝑰 𝒎𝒂𝒚 𝒃𝒆 𝒖𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝒇𝒐𝒓 :

Legal research and precedent retrieval;

Citation verification;

Summarising pleadings, judgments and documents;

Translation of judgments, orders and legal documents;

Automated transcription of court proceedings;

Drafting assistance and generation of prescribed formats;

Preparation of notices, summons and administrative documents;

Cause list preparation and hearing scheduling;

Case management and defect scrutiny;

Record management;

Judicial administration and resource allocation;

Accessibility tools for persons with disabilities; and

AI-powered assistants and chatbots to help litigants access court services.

The regulations also state that courts should actively explore AI tools that improve access to justice, reduce delays and enhance efficiency.

What AI cannot do

The places several absolute restrictions on the use of AI in courts.

𝗔𝗜 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗼𝘁:

Decide cases or judicial outcomes;

Pass sentences;

Determine bail eligibility;

Assess flight risk or likelihood of reoffending;

Evaluate witness credibility;

Predict future conduct of litigants, witnesses, lawyers or accused persons;

Conduct surveillance of judges, advocates or litigants;

Interfere with judicial deliberations; or

Use opaque “black-box” decision-making systems in matters affecting rights or personal liberty.

The regulations specifically prohibit courts from using AI-based risk-scoring systems to assess whether an accused may commit future offences, flee from justice or qualify for bail.

According to separate notifications issued by the Department of Justice in the Union Law Ministry on Monday morning, sen...
01/06/2026

According to separate notifications issued by the Department of Justice in the Union Law Ministry on Monday morning, senior SC advocate Venkita Subramani Mohana; Justice Shree Chandrashekhar, Chief Justice of Bombay High Court; Justice Sheel Nagu, Chief Justice of Punjab and Haryana High Court; Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva, Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court; and Justice Arun Palli, Chief Justice of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, have been elevated as top court judges. Once they take oath and assume charge, the SC will formally have 37 judges. The government last month promulgated an ordinance amending a law to increase the sanctioned strength of the apex court to 38 from 34, including the Chief Justice of India.

Address

Kanpur
208011

Telephone

+918851024014

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Ujjwal Tiwari posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Ujjwal Tiwari:

Shortcuts

Share

Category