KEYWORDS:-CORRECTION OF ERRONEOUS ORDER BY SUPREME COURT- DATE:-29-04-1988 AIR 1988 SC 1531 : (1988) 1 Suppl. SCR 1 : (1988) 2 SCC 602 : JT 1988 (2) SC 325 & 408 : […]
KEYWORD:- Private prosecutor- Public Prosecutor- Trial- The prosecution in a sessions court cannot be conducted by anyone other than the Public Prosecutor. Act: Section 301(2) and Section 302(2)Cr.P.C DATE : 30/08/1999 SUPREME […]
Private individuals can be prosecuted by the Court on the ground that they have abetted the act of criminal misconduct falling under Section 13(1)(e) of PC Act 1988 committed by the public servant
Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. Selvi J. Jayalalitha & Ors. [Criminal Appeal Nos.300 – 303 of 2017], wherein charges were framed against A1 – former Chief Minister […]
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.
Custodial interrogation is not the norm for high officials who have credible roots in society and who are reliable and whose absconding shall not be apprehended: CHC
Rajeev Kumar vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) & Anr.- 30.05.2019
In a contempt proceeding SC cannot determine whether or not Rajeev Kumar should be arrested by the CBI for custodial interrogation: SC
Subrata Chattoraj Vs. Union of India and Others – MAY 17, 2019 – Contempt Petition- the State Police Agencies who were investigating these cases to provide fullest cooperation to the CBI, including assistance in terms of manpower and material, to enable them to conduct and complete the investigation expeditiously. The CBI alleges non-cooperation and charges WBSPF with obfuscating the investigation by causing impediments and roadblocks with a view to protect big names and members/leaders of the ruling party in the State of West Bengal.
M.V. ELISABETH AND OTHERS Vs. HARWAN INVESTMENT AND TRADING PVT. LTD., HANOEKAR HOUSE, SWATONTAPETH, VASCO-DE-GAMA, GOA
(1993) AIR(SCW) 177 : (1993) AIR(SC) 1014 : (1992) 2 JT 65 : (1992) 1 SCALE 490 : (1993) Sup2 SCC 433 : (1992) 1 SCR 1003 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION […]
NINTH SCHEDULE (Article 31B) 1. The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 (Bihar Act XXX of 1950). 2. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Bombay Act LXVII of 1948). 3. The […]
The true scope of Section 163-A introduced by amendment by Act 54 of 1994 with effect from 14.11.1994. Since the answer to question that falls for consideration before us rests entirely on […]
In a suit for injunction based on prescriptive easement, the plaintiff should seek declaration that he has acquired the right
Easementary right of way — It has been statutorily declared that an easement which under no circumstances can be advantageous to the dominant heritage shall cease to exist. It has been Judicially […]
Tamil Nadu State Laws Published vide Notification No. Rules framed by the High Court of Madras, R.O.C. 876/ 80F2, dated 30.11.1998 – S.R.O. No. C-32/88 By virtue of the powers conferred under […]
School violence has been a persistent problem in the United States. For example, on January 29, 1979, a 16-year-old opened fire on Grover Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego, CA. She killed two adults […]
Supreme Court recommend the Union of India to seriously consider bringing an amendment in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 to incorporate irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for the grant of […]
Whether refusal to have sexual intercourse for a long time without sufficient reason itself amounts to mental cruelty? SC Yes
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh
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.
What is a substantial question of law would certainly depend upon facts and circumstances of every case and if a question of law had been settled by the highest court of the country that question however important and difficult it may have been regarded in the past and however large may be its effect on any of the parties, would not be regarded as substantial question of law. In Raghunath Prasad v. Deputy Commissioner of Partabgarh  54 LA. 126 the Judicial Committee observed that a question of law to be considered a “substantial question of law” need not be one of general importance and it could be a substantial question “as between the parties”.
Central Act (41 of 1988) An Act to prevent the misuse of religious institutions for political and other purposes. Be it enacted by Parliament in the Thirty-ninth Year of the Republic of […]
(Act No. XVI of 1988) Received the assent on the Governor on 31st august,1988 and is here by published for general information :- An Act to provide for better management, maintainenance and better […]
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 […]
We are of the view that aforesaid directions are not consistent with the law laid down by the larger Bench in Mathew (supra). In Mathew (supra), the direction for consulting the opinion of another doctor before proceeding with criminal investigation was confined only in cases of criminal complaint and not in respect of cases before the Consumer Forum. The reason why the larger Bench in Mathew (supra) did not equate the two is obvious in view of the jurisprudential and conceptual difference between cases of negligence in civil and criminal matter. This has been elaborately discussed in Mathew (supra). This distinction has been accepted in the judgment of this Court in Malay Kumar Ganguly (supra) (See paras 133 and 180 at pages 274 and 284 of the report).