Search results for ‘SC 1990

STATE OF HARYANA Vs. RAMA DIYA [All SC 1990 APRIL]

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

No Government servant or a servant of public body can have any political ideology or philosophy in the discharge of his duties: RHC

No Government servant can claim to remain at particular place on a particular post and the Courts will not interfere with the order of transfer unless it can appear to it that the transfer power has been abused or that the transfer has been made for a collateral purpose with oblique motive and colourable exercise of power-RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (JAIPUR BENCH)

What is a substantial question of law- SC explained

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 [1927] 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”.

In 1990 Supreme Court held that heavy vehicles operating in Delhi being buses and trucks etc vehicles constitute main contributing factor to pollution.

We are of the view that the heavy vehicles operating in the city being the buses, trucks and defence vehicle constitute the main contributing factor to pollution. It is necessary, therefore, that more of attention is directed against these vehicles. Particulars of the prosecution said to have been undertaken should be made available to the Court so that the Court would be in a position to appreciate the steps taken and to what extent this measure is effective. We, therefore, direct the Delhi Administration to place before the Court a complete list of the prosecution launched against the vehicles for causing pollution by infringement of the various requirements of the law with particular reference to the vehicles, nature of the vehicles dates of prosecution, the nature of offences for which prosecutions have been launched and the result, if any, of such prosecutions from 1-4-1990.

V. KISHAN RAO Vs. NIKHIL SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL AND ANOTHER [ALL SC 2010 MARCH]

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).

A decree obtained by fraud cannot be used as res judicata and the same can be challenged by a separate Suit-SC

RAM CHANDRA SINGH VS
SAVITRI DEVI AND OTHERS – 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.

STATE (THROUGH) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. SHRI KALYAN SINGH (FORMER CM OF UP)[ALL SC 2017 APRIL]

A number of judgments have been cited including the celebrated Supreme Court judgment in Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India & Another, 1998 (4) SCC 409, in which a Constitution Bench of this Court held that Article 142 cannot authorize the Court to ignore the substantive rights of a litigant while dealing with the cause pending before it and cannot be used to supplant the substantive law applicable to the cause before this Court. A large number of other judgments following this judgment were also cited.

C. Venkatachalam Versus Ajitkumar C. Shah and Others [ALL SC 2011 AUGUST]

In order to ensure smooth, consistent, uniform and unvarying functioning of the National Commission, the State Commissions and the District Forums, we deem it appropriate to direct the National Commission to frame comprehensive rules regarding appearances of the agents, representatives, registered organizations and/or non-advocates appearing before the National Commission, the State Commissions and the District Forums governing their qualifications, conduct and ethical behaviour of agents/non-advocates/representatives, registered organizations and/or agents appearing before the consumer forums.