NO , an offer can’t be accepted after it has been terminated. An offer ceases to be capable of acceptance or offer lapses or comes to an end in the following circumstances: 1) By communication of notice of termination of offer to the offree 2) By lapse of the specified or reasonable time 3) By death or insanity of the offer 4) By counter offer 5) By not being accepted according to the prescribed or usual mode. 6) By non-fulfillment of a condition precedent.

As per the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, following are the requirements for registration: • One can apply for marriage at any sub-divisional magistrate’s office; the offline application method can be initiated from there itself; the registration can be done online as well. The details are required after confirming your district/state. In the case of Hindu Marriage Act, one has to wait only 15 days for an appointment while it may extend to 30 days in case of Special Marriage Act. • The registration form must be duly signed by both male and female with a sound state of mind. Both the parties must not fall within any degree of prohibited relationship. • The second requirement for registration under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is any document that provides the date of birth of the individuals. The documents may be the birth certificate, matriculation certificate, passports, PAN cards, etc. • Two passport size photographs of both the parties are required, also one marriage photograph and Marriage invitation card (which although is not mandatory). • In a case where the individuals have converted to any of the religions which the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 covers, the conversion certificate duly verified by a priest to the religion which the individuals have converted to, is also required. • The most important process for the registration to complete is the attestation of a Gazetted officer. All the above-mentioned documents must be verified by a Gazetted officer. • After the submission of all the above-mentioned documents duly verified, it shall be the duty of the district court to confirm and put a final thumbs up on the marriage registration of the individuals. Cost of registration: The basic cost of registration differs from state to state; it is however in between Rs. 100-200.

No. The conversion or apostasy does not automatically dissolve a marriage already solemnized under the Hindu Marriage Act but only provides a ground for divorce under Section 18. Till a decree of divorce is passed, the marriage subsists. In the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India in 2000, on the ground that the judgement in the impugned case violates the fundamental right to life and liberty and freedom to practice any religion enshrined under Articles 20, 21, 25 and 26 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that the contention of the petitioner that the judgment of SarlaMudgal amounts to the violation of freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion as guaranteed under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution, is farfetched and is alleged by those who hide behind the cloak of religion to escape the law. The court further stipulated that the freedom guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution is such freedom which does not encroach upon similar freedom of the other persons. The petition also claimed that making converts liable for committing polygamy would be against Islam. The apex court observed the ignorance of the petitioners and rightly said that even under Islamic law, purity of marriage is upheld by Prophet Mohammad. The interpretation of Islamic law in the modern sense would never allow such acts in its religion. Islam is a progressive, pious and respected religion that cannot be given a narrow concept as has been allegedly done by the petitioners.

The Hon’ble Apex court in HOTEL PRIYA A PROPERIETORSHIP V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA(SLP (C) NO. 13764 OF 2012) has stated that as per (Constitution of India, 1950) Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g) , Gender cap as to the number of women or men, who can perform in orchestras and bands, in licensed bars is void. This restriction directly transgresses Article 15 (1) and Article 19 (1) (g). Gender-cap (i.e. four females and four males, in any performance) appears to be the product of a stereotypical view that women who perform in bars and establishments,, belong to a certain class of society. Such measures – which claim protection, in reality are destructive of Article 15 (3) as they masquerade as special provisions and operate to limit or exclude altogether women's choice of their avocation. The regulation on the overall number of performers, or even the dimensions of a stage cannot be characterized as a restriction. they can fall within the legitimate domain of the authority of the commissioner or the government which formulates such conditions.

The application without the supported affidavit is not valid. The court in BABU VENKATESH V. STATE OF KARNATAKA (CrA 252 OF 2022) observed that the Magistrate while passing the order under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C., has totally failed to consider the law laid down by it. In any case, when the complaint was not supported by an affidavit, the Magistrate ought not to have entertained the application under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C.

In a recent UNIVERSAL PETRO CHEMICALS V. B.P.PCL judgement, the Supreme Court disallowed the claim for damages raised in lieu of specific performance of contract citing the reason that the plaintiff had not specifically sought the relief of compensation in the plaint. The Court referred to Section 21(5) of the Specific Relief Act which says : "No compensation shall be awarded under this section unless the plaintiff has claimed such compensation in his plaint: Provided that where the plaintiff has not claimed any such compensation in the plaint, the court shall, at any stage of the proceeding, allow him to a amend the plaint on such terms as may be just, for including a claim for such compensation".

The Supreme Cour in SHRAFAT ALI V. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH WP(Crl) 439/2021 observed that applicant's prior criminal history, conduct and behaviour in jail, possible danger to society, etc. are relevant considerations while considering an application for premature release. Such an application has to be considered on the basis of the policy as it stood on the date when the applicant was convicted of the offence, the bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud, Surya Kant and Vikram Nath observed.