The Easements Act, 1977 (1920 A.D.) Act No. 14 of 1977 [Sanctioned by His Highness the Maharaja Sahib Bahadur per Chief Minister’s endorsement No. 8372. dated 11th September, 1920 read with State […]
All `murder’ is `culpable homicide’ but not vice-versa. Speaking generally, `culpable homicide’ sans ‘special characteristics of murder is culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to […]
Act No. 5 of 1977 [Sanctioned by His Highness the Maharaja Sahib Bahadur per Chief Minister’s endorsement No. 8372, dated 11th September, 1920 read with State Council Resolution No. 1, dated 8th […]
ACT NO. 33 OF 1977 [18th August, 1977] An Act to provide for the Salary and Allowances of Leaders of Opposition in Parliament. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Twenty-eighth Year […]
A retrospective operation is, therefore, not to be given to a statute so as to impair existing right or obligation, otherwise than as regards matter of procedure .unless that effect cannot be avoided without doing violence to the language of the enactment. Before applying a statute retrospectively the Court has to be satisfied that the statute is in fact retrospective. The presumption against retrospective operation is strong in .cases in which the statute, if operated retrospectively, would prejudicially affect vested rights or the illegality of the past transactions, or impair contracts, or impose new duty or attach new disability in respect of past transactions or consideration already passed.
JT 2011 (13) SC 319 : (2011) 13 SCALE 75 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Shiv Shankar Singh Versus State of Bihar and Another (Before : B.S. Chauhan and T.S. Thakur, JJ.) Criminal […]
SCHEDULED BANKS UNDER RBI ACT Ajodhia Bank, Fyzabad, Allahabad Bank. American Express Banking Corp. American Express International Banking Corporation. Andhra Bank, Masulipatam. Bank of America, National Association. Bank of Baroda Bank of […]
Conversion of land in Delhi (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Union of India and others Versus Dev Raj Gupta and others (Before: P. B. Sawant And K. Ramaswamy, JJ.) Civil Appeal No. 1996 […]
According to Section 433(A) that a prisoner who has been sentenced to death and whose death sentence has been commuted into one of imprisonment for life and persons who have been sentenced to imprisonment for life for an offence for which death is one of the punishments provided by law should undergo actual imprisonment of 14 years in Jail. We are referring to Section 433(A) in this judgment only for a limited purpose of showing that after the introduction of this section, the life convicts falling within the purview of Section 433(A) has to undergo the mandatory minimum 14 years of actual imprisonment. It may be mentioned at this juncture that no one has got a vested right to claim premature release on the ground that he has suffered the minimum actual imprisonment as prescribed under Section 433(A) because a sentence of ‘imprisonment for life’ is incarceration until death, that is, for the remaining period of convicted prison’s actual life
A decree obtained by fraud cannot be used as a res judicata and the same can be challenged by a separate Suit-SC
The judiciary in India also possesses inherent power, specially u/s 151 CPC, to recall its judgment or order if it is obtained by fraud” on Court, In the case of fraud on a party to the suit or proceedings, the Court may direct the affected party to file a separate suit for setting aside the decree obtained by fraud. Inherent powers are powers, which are resident in all Courts, especially of superior jurisdiction. These powers spring not from legislation but from the nature and the constitution of the tribunals or Courts themselves so as to enable them to maintain their dignity, secure obedience to its process and rules, protect its officers from indignity and wrong and to punish unseemly behavior. This power is necessary for the orderly administration of the Court’s business.