STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS MAHESH KUMAR @ MAHESH DHAULPURIA & ANR- 16/7/2019- In the cases of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a complete chain of evidence as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused and none else.
Sita Ram Vs. State of NCT of Delhi – 09/07/19-Sections 302 and 323 read with 34 of the I.P.C.- the occurrence was without premeditation and sudden fight between the parties started in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. The occurrence happened when deceased as his way back home questioned the accused as to his conduct of tapping electricity from the pole. He was not pre-armed and other accused were also not pre-armed. Though, deceased has sustained as many as nine injuries, except injury no(s).1 to 3 which are the injuries caused on the head and all other injuries are on the hand, shoulder, arms etc.
Considering the nature of the injuries sustained by deceased, it cannot be said that the accused and other accused have taken undue advantage of deceased in attacking him. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C. deserves to be modified under Section 304 Part II I.P.C.
Randhir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors – 08/07/19- Army Act 1950-The requirement of recording reasons for convening a Summary Court Martial shall apply from 5 July 2016. However, the fundamental principle of law which has been enunciated is that the power to order an SCM is a drastic power which must be exercised in a situation where it is absolutely imperative that immediate action is necessary.
Central Bureau of Investigation & ANR. Vs. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc-05/07/19-PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION-the provisions of Article 32 do not specifically indicate who can move the court. In the absence of such a provision in that respect, it is plain that the petitioner may be anyone in whom the law has conferred power to maintain an action of such nature. It is open to anybody who is interested in the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for relief.
The Director, Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Ispat Khandan Janta Mazdoor Union-05/07/19-where the contract was to supply of labour and necessary labour was supplied by the contractor who worked under the directions, supervision and control of the principal employer, that in itself will not in any manner construe the contract entered between the contractor and contract labour to be sham and bogus per se.
Ramesh Dasu Chauhan and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra-04/07/19-Evidence Act-There is no gainsaying that confession made to a police officer cannot be proved as against a person accused of any offence and no confession made by a person while in police custody except made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, can be proved against him in view of embargo created by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Section 27 of the Act nevertheless carves out an exception as it provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence while he is in police custody, "so much of such information", regardless of it being a confession or not, may be proved, if it relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.
Sopanrao & ANR. Vs. Syed Mehmood & Ors-03/07/19-CIVIL SUIT-The limitation for filing a suit for possession on the basis of title is 12 years . Merely because one of the reliefs sought is of declaration that will not mean that the outer limitation of 12 years is lost. In a suit filed for possession based on title the plaintiff is bound to prove his title and pray for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land because his suit on the basis of title cannot succeed unless he is held to have some title over the land.
M/s. Adani Power (Mundra) Ltd. Vs. Gujarat Electricity Regulatory Commission and Ors-02/07/19-A contract is interpreted according to its purpose. The purpose of a contract is the interests, objectives, values, policy that the contract is designed to actualise. It comprises the joint intent of the parties. Every such contract expresses the autonomy of the contractual parties' private will. It creates reasonable, legally protected expectations between the parties and reliance on its results. Consistent with the character of purposive interpretation, the court is required to determine the ultimate purpose of a contract primarily by the joint intent of the parties at the time of the contract so formed. It is not the intent of a single party; it is the joint intent of both the parties and the joint intent of the parties is to be discovered from the entirety of the contract and the circumstances surrounding its formation.
Dalbir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors-02/07/19-Summary General Court Martial-In service matters the past conduct, both positive and negative will be relevant not only while referring to the misconduct but also in deciding the proportionality of the punishment, the Court should be cautious while considering the case of an officer/soldier/employee of a disciplined force and the same yardstick or sympathetic consideration as in other cases cannot be applied. The resources of the country are spent on training a soldier to retaliate and fight when the integrity of the nation is threatened and there is aggression. In such grave situation if a soldier turns his back to the challenge, it will certainly amount to cowardice.
Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Reynders Label Printing India Pvt. Ltd. and ANR-01/07/19-Sections 11(5), 11(9) and 11(12)(a) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996-Domestic commercial arbitration-That agreement is only between the applicant and respondent No.1 and as a result thereof, it would give rise to a domestic commercial arbitration and not an international commercial arbitration. Respondent No.1 has also made it amply clear through its counsel that it will have no objection, whatsoever, if the Court were to appoint a sole arbitrator for resolving the dispute between the applicant and respondent No.1, who would conduct the arbitration proceedings in accordance with the Act, in Delhi, as a domestic commercial arbitration between the applicant and respondent No.1 alone.
Pradeep Ram Vs. State of Jharkhand & ANR-01/07/19-Criminal-Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967-The special Judge in his order has neither referred to Section 309 nor Section 167 under which accused was remanded. When the Court has power to pass a particular order, non-mention of provision of law or wrong mention of provision of law is inconsequential.
Laxmi Pat Surana Versus Voltas Ltd.[CHC]-5 /7/ 2019-Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act -A Court whilst hearing an application under Section 34, requires to show more judicial restraint than in the process of an Appellate jurisdiction. An arbitration is an alternate dispute resolution where parties voluntarily decide to avoid the protracted and lengthy process of the Court. The vast jurisprudence on this aspect is never ending and multiplying everyday. If a Court is permitted to review the final decision of the arbitral tribunal both on law or on merits outside the permissible limits statutorily prescribed then the entire object of efficacy and efficiency of the Arbitral Tribunal would be rendered nugatory and infructuous.
M/s IMAPG India Pvt Ltd. vs Accupack and ors [BHC] – 13/06/2019-Trade Mark- Passing off Action-It is settled law as noted earlier that plaintiff who alleges passing off must first establish that the public has grown accustomed to associate a particular product with that of plaintiff as the manufacturer or dealer in that product. There has to be an element of exclusivity attached to that product.
Sardar Sambhaji Angre vs H.H. Jyitiraditya M. Scindia And Ors [BHC] – 18/6/2019-In case of the partition suit, all the parties are to be treated as plaintiffs. Even if any preliminary decree would have been passed by this court in this suit based on the said affidavit dated 15th October, 1985 under Order 20 Rule 18 read with sections 151 to 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, court has ample power to pass more than one preliminary decree or to modify the preliminary decree prior to passing of the final decree having regard to change of supervening circumstances.
Smt. Bijoya Laxmi Parui & Ors Vs Dr Rajendranath Parui & Ors[CHC] – 14/6/2019-Second Appeal-370 days Delay Condoned on the ground that the learned advocate who was entrusted to prepare the memorandum of appeal advised that no appeal is required to be filed as the preliminary decree is not challenged before the Court. It is held that the lapses or negligence on the part of the advocate should not stand in the way of rendering substantial service to the litigant.
💡 Current English Court Decisions
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.
Regina vs Albert William Granon- 2 July 2019-Sheffield Crown Court-No sentence I impose can bring Stanley back. No sentence I impose can undo what you have done and heal the rifts in your family. All I can do is impose what the law considers to be the appropriate sentence for a case of this nature. I do that by following the guidelines for sentencing in cases of manslaughter.
Jack Sebastian Shepherd -v- The Queen – 20/6/ 2019-COURT OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL DIVISION)-The states from whom extradition is sought will recognise that breach of bail is a separate matter in the UK. With an explanation of the way in which breach will be considered by the court and on the basis that punishing those who fail to answer bail is a necessary component of an effective criminal justice system which releases most of those charged with crime rather than requiring their detention in custody. In every case the consent of the state from which extradition is sought should unequivocally be requested with an explanation of why this is necessary. If, in those circumstances, criminal proceedings have to be commenced, it should not be impracticable to start such proceedings at the time that extradition is sought.
The Queen (on the application of Campaign Against Arms Trade) -v- Secretary of State for International Trade and others – 20 /6/ 2019-COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) -The Export Control Act 2002- This appeal concerns the lawfulness of the grant by the UK government of export licences for the sale or transfer of arms or military equipment to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, for possible use in the conflict in Yemen. The appeal is from the order of the High Court of 10 July 2017, which dismissed the claims of the appellant, Campaign Against the Arms Trade, (“CAAT”) for judicial review. The High Court concluded that the government decision was lawful. This is a claim for judicial review. The courts are not concerned with the merits of the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia. Different people in society will have different views on that, but that is not a matter for the courts, who are only concerned with the law and whether the decision by government was lawful.
RECENT DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
RUCHO ET AL. v. COMMON CAUSE ET AL -27/6/2019-SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES-Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions be-yond the reach of the federal courts.
GERALD P. MITCHELL v. WISCONSIN – 27/06/ 2019-Whether a statute authorizing a blood draw from an unconscious motorist provides an exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.
RECENT DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
