360 Legal Research and Databases

Advocatetanmoy Law Library provides free legal research platform for students, professionals, and government agencies.

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

  • ONGC LTD. & ORS. Vs CONSUMER EDUCATION RESEARCH SOCIETY & ORS- 09/12/2019 - Consumer- whether any amount is being paid by the employees for contribution to the services rendered by the Trust, it is apparent that the service, if any, is being rendered by the Trust and not by the ONGC. Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the claimants and the ONGC.
  • THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Vs PHULPARI KUMARI- 06/12/2019 - Departmental Inquiry : It is settled law that interference with the orders passed pursuant to a departmental inquiry can be only in case of ‘no evidence’. Sufficiency of evidence is not within the realm of judicial review.
  • Station House Officer CBI/ACB/Bangalore vs. B.A. Srinivasan – 05/12/2019 - Sanction u/s Section 197 CrPC when not required- From a perusal of the case law referred to supra, it becomes clear that for the purpose of obtaining previous sanction from the appropriate Government under Section 197 CrPC, it is imperative that the alleged offence is committed in discharge of official duty by the accused.
  • State of NCT of Delhi Vs Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors – 05/12/2019 - Order of Discharge-Sections 120B, 302, 201 r.w. S.34 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act- In the present case, on account of the inconsistency in framing charges by the […]
  • Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr-05/12/2019 - Cancellation of Bail -Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this Court. Where an earlier application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden on the appellate court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be granted.
  • BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs Sh. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma & Anr-05/12/2019 - Pension Denied: Even if the first respondent had served twenty years, under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules his past service stands forfeited upon resignation. The first respondent is therefore not […]
  • STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. VS MANJU NAIK- 04/12/2019 - Statutory Interpretation:a particular provision of the statute should be construed with reference to other provisions of the same statute so as to construe the enactment as a whole. It would also be necessary to avoid an interpretation which will involve conflict with two provisions of the same statute and effort should be made for harmonious construction. In other words, the provision of a Rule cannot be used to defeat another Rule unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them.
  • P.Chidambaram Vs Directorate of Enforcement – 4/12/2019 - Bail granted-Observed: While the learned Judge was empowered to look at the materials produced in a sealed cover to satisfy his judicial conscience, the learned Judge ought not to have recorded finding based […]

HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS

  • Hariom Vijay Pande, Convict No. C-92 vs State of Maharashtra, Through Divisional Commissioner, Nagpur- 3/12/2019 - Parole leave is recognized as a statutory right as per Rule 19 of the Maharashtra Prisons (Mumbai Furlough and Parole) Rules, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1959’ for short) and the convicts are entitled for parole leave, if the circumstances as referred in Rule 19 exist. Of course, it is not the absolute right of the convict to seek parole leave and the right is circumscribed by various other considerations including the objective satisfaction of the jail authorities and the authority competent to consider the application made by the convict for grant of parole leave.
  • Jyotsna Roy -VS- State of West Bengal & Ors [CHC] 15/11/2019 - Considering the nature of duties and in the jurisdiction exercised by the deceased and considering the death of the deceased at the age of 52 years while in service, such an event cannot be taken lightly, irrespective of whether a writ petition had been filed or not. The writ petition has only added substance to the requirement of an in-depth investigation. The Court is therefore in requirement of a verifiable independent expert opinion on the results of the investigation collected so far.
  • Rajeev Kumar -Vs CBI, SP, Economic Offences –IV, CGO Complex-CHC 01/10/2019 - Therefore, the status of a witness is convertible to the accused during the course of investigation subject to the collection of independent sufficient incriminating materials against the petitioner, which must be in the nature of startling and clinching in sense.
  • Rajeev Kumar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) & Anr. -13/09/2019 - The very object of Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to enable the Investigating Officer to collect information from whomsoever, is found acquainted with the facts of the case in relation to which the investigation is carried out.
  • P. CHIDAMBARAM Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION [DHC]-20/08/2019 - Anticipatory Bail application cancelled - Section 120B r/w Section 420 of IPC and Section 8 and Section 13 (1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the PC Act - Pre-arrest is not meant for high profile economic offenders. Time has come to recommend to the Parliament to suitably amend the Law to restrict the provisions of pre-arrest bail and make it inapplicable to economic offenders of high profile cases like the instant one.
  • Md. Sarfaraz @ Bonu & Anr. Vs- The Union of India- 09/08/2019[CHC] - Affidavit of a witness with regard to the facts in issue cannot be treated as a statement of the deponent before the Court. Hence, such affidavit cannot be treated as ‘evidence’ under […]
  • Prayer for pre-arrest bail was turned down by Apex Court granted by Calcutta High Court -13.08.2019 - Bail granted - In the matter of: Riday @ Hriday Ghosh @ Ridoy - The accused was not named in the first information report and as co-accused persons are on regular bail/anticipatory bail, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

ENGLISH COURTS DECISIONS

  • Sandeep & Reena Mander -v- Royal borough of Windsor & Maidenhead, Adopt Berkshire – 6/12/2019 - The principal piece of legislation governing adoption in England & Wales is the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (“2002 Act”). Section 3 of the 2002 Act places a duty on local authorities to maintain an adoption service within their area, and sets out the minimum facilities that must be made in the provision of the service.
  • R v Mark James Redknapp – 31/10/2019 - DORSET MAGISTRATES COURT : ROAD TRAFFIC OFFENCE- The Court is satisfied so that it is sure that the defendant Mark James Redknapp is guilty of the offence charged of driving a motor vehicle with a proportion of a specified controlled drug above the specified limit. The defendant was fined £3000 and ordered to pay costs of £2,500, £120 Victim surcharge (payable in 14 days) and disqualified from driving for 3 years.
  • Schulze Allen v Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons – 1/7/2019 - The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council - In their Decision on Facts the Committee did not expressly address the issue of whether Dr Schulze Allen’s infraction was a criminal conviction. But they must have decided that it was. For otherwise they would have had no power to direct the removal of his name from the register under section 16(1)(a) of the Act.
  • Tillman v Egon Zehnder Ltd- 3/7/2019 - The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom -A company employs a business executive pursuant to a written agreement. Following the termination of her employment she wishes to become employed by a firm whose business is in competition with that of the company. The company contends that her proposed employment would breach a covenant in the agreement. She answers that the covenant is void at common law because part of it is in unreasonable restraint of trade.
  • R (on the prosecution of Wolverhampton City Council) -v- Cushman & Wakefield Debenham Tie Leung Limited – 2nd July 2019 - Crown Court at Wolverhampton - Court imposes a fine of £1,333,000 to be paid within a period now to be fixed. This is in my judgment a level of fine which represents both the seriousness of the offence and the extent to which the Company fell below the required standard, together with the relevant financial circumstances. It is also a proportionate one which is sufficiently substantial to meet the objectives of the health and safety legislation and sentencing regime.