Search results for ‘SC 1998

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 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.

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.

S.K. Raju @ Abdul Haque @ Jagga Vs. State of West Bengal [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]

September 05, 2018: Section 42 OF NDPS ACT-An empowered officer under Section 42(1) is obligated to reduce to writing the information received by him, only when an offence punishable under the Act has been committed in any building, conveyance or an enclosed place, or when a document or an article is concealed in a building, conveyance or an enclosed place. Compliance with Section 42, including recording of information received by the empowered officer, is not mandatory, when an offence punishable under the Act was not committed in a building, conveyance or an enclosed place. Section 43 is attracted in situations where the seizure and arrest are conducted in a public place, which includes any public conveyance, hotel, shop, or other place intended for use by, or accessible to, the public-CONVICTION UPHELD.

Ramkripal s/o Shyamlal Charmakar Versus State of Madhya Pradesh [ALL SC 2007 MARCH]

The sine qua non of the offence of rape is penetration, and not ejaculation. Ejaculation without penetration constitutes an attempt to commit rape and not actual rape. Definition of “rape” as contained in Section 375, IPC refers to “SEXual intercourse” and the Explanation appended to the Section provides that penetration is sufficient to constitute the SEXual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. Intercourse means SEXual connection. In the instant case that connection has been clearly established. Courts below were perfectly justified in their view.