We have noted with concern that the Special Court has unnecessarily spent valuable public time in writing the lengthy judgment for disposing of the claims of the appellants which, we feel, could have been decided by a brief but speaking orders. Brevity of orders on application of mind and not the length of the order is the criterion for adjudicating the rights of the parties which are otherwise subject to the decision of a Civil Court.… Read More Amina Ahmed Dossa and others Versus State of Maharashtra [ ALL SC 2001 January]
Keywords:-Justification and propriety AIR 2001 SC 972 : (2001) 1 SCR 959 : (2001) 3 SCC 54 : JT 2001 (2) SC 397 : (2001) 1 SCALE 685 : (2001) CriLJ SC 1157 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) In the matter of : ‘K’ a Judicial officer (Before : A. S. Anand, C.J.I., And R. C.… Read More In the matter of : ‘K’ a Judicial officer [ALL SC 2001 February]
AIR 2001 SC 2383 : (2001) 3 SCR 777 : (2001) 6 SCC 118 : JT 2001 (5) SC 280 : (2001) 4 SCALE 241 : (2001) CriLJ SC 3302 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Smt. Laxmi Appellant Versus Om Prakash and others Respondent (Before : R. C. Lahoti And Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.) Criminal Appeal No.… Read More Smt. Laxmi Vs Om Prakash and others [ALL SC 2001 JULY]
KEYWORDS:- MAINTENANCE OF MUSLIM WIFE DATE: 28 September, 2001 ACTS:- Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Act, 1986-Section 125 CrPC. Supreme Court of India Danial Latifi & Anr vs Union Of India Author: R Babu Bench: G.B. Pattanaik, S. Rajendra Babu, D.P. Mohapatra, Doraiswamy Raju, Shivaraj V. Patil CASE NO.: Writ Petition (civil) 868 of 1986 JUDGMENT:… Read More Danial Latifi & Anr vs Union Of India [ALL SC 2001 SEPTEMBER]
KEYWORDS:-Rectification of divorce decree- DATE:- 28-02-2001 ACTS:- Special Marriage Act, 1954—Section 28-CPC SECTION 152 AIR 2001 SC 1084 : (2001) 2 SCR 207 : (2001) 4 SCC 181 : JT 2001 (3) SC 356 : (2001) 2 SCALE 277 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Jayalakshmi Coelho Appellant Versus Oswald Joseph Coelho Respondent (Before : D. P. Mohapatra… Read More Jayalakshmi Coelho Vs Oswald Joseph Coelho [SC 2001 FEBRUARY]
KEYWORDS:- PRIVATE PROSECUTOR- VICTIM-NOTICE- The said provision falls within the Chapter titled General Provisions as to Inquiries and Trials. When such a role is permitted to be played by a private person, though it is a limited role, even in the sessions courts, that is enough to show that the private person, if he is… Read More M/S JK INTERNATIONAL Vs. STATE, GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND OTHERS [SC 2001 February]
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).… Read More V. KISHAN RAO Vs. NIKHIL SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL AND ANOTHER [ALL SC 2010 MARCH]
The apex court’s five-judge Constitution bench was unanimous in striking down Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code dealing with the offence of adultery, holding it as manifestly arbitrary, archaic and violative of the rights to equality and equal opportunity to women… Read More Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]
September 11, 2018-TITLE APPEAL-Keeping in view the scope and ambit of the powers of the High Court while deciding the second appeal when we advert to the facts of the case, we find that the High Court committed an error in allowing the defendants’ second appeal and further erred in dismissing the plaintiffs’ suit by answering the substantial question of law. This we say for more than one reason.
First, mere perusal of the impugned order would go to show that the High Court had admitted the second appeal by framing only one substantial question of law, namely, whether the first Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the defendants’ first appeal by taking into consideration one earlier litigation in relation to the suit land, which was not between the same parties. The High Court held that the first Appellate Court was not justified because the earlier litigation was not between the present plaintiffs and the defendants but it was between the different parties and, therefore, any decision rendered in such litigation would not operate as res judicata in the present litigation between the parties. This resulted in allowing of the appeal and dismissing the suit.
Second, the High Court committed another error when it failed to frame any substantial question of law on the issue of the plaintiffs’ ownership over the suit land. So long as no substantial question of law was framed, the High Court had no jurisdiction to examine the said issue in its second appellate jurisdiction. In other words, the High Court having framed only one question, which did not pertain to issue of ownership of the suit land, had no jurisdiction to examine the issue of ownership. It was not permissible in the light of Section 100 (5) of the Code, which empowers the High Court to decide the appeal only on the question framed and not beyond it.
Third, the High Court could invoke its powers under proviso to subsection (5) of Section 100 and frame one or two additional questions, as the case may be, even at the time of hearing of the second appeal. It would have enabled the High Court to examine the issue of ownership of the suit land in its correct perspective. It was, however, not done by the High Court.
Fourth, the High Court, while examining the question framed, also cursorily touched the ownership issue which, in our opinion, the High Court could not have done for want of framing of any substantial question of law on the ownership issue. That apart, the High Court also failed to see that the issue of res judicata and the issue of ownership were independent issues and the decision on one would not have 14 answered the other one. In other words, both the issues had to be examined independent of each other on their respective merits. It was, however, possible only after framing of substantial questions on both the issues as provided under Section 100(4) and (5) of the Code. This was, however, not done in this case.… Read More Narayana Gramani & Ors. Vs. Mariammal & Ors [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]
September 07, 2018 – Direct Recruitment-Supreme Court discussed the following issues for decision:
I Whether the Railways is bound by the rules framed by the DoPT or it can frame its own rules and whether the IREM has statutory force?
II Whether Shri R.K. Kushwaha, the direct recruit had laid challenge to the rules, which provide for giving weightage in the seniority to the promotee officers?
III Whether the findings of the CAT in respect of N.R. Parmar’s case (supra) was limited to removing the arbitrariness only in respect of ‘DITS’?
IV Whether by issuing the memorandum dated 05.03.2018 amendment/modifying rules 327341 the Railways have violated the order issued by the CAT?
I Whether the Railways is bound by the rules framed by the DoPT or it can frame its own rules and whether the IREM has statutory force?… Read More Prabhat Ranjan Singh & ANR. Vs. R.K. Kushwaha & Ors. [ALL SC 2018 September]
23-04-2001:-When a claim of escheat is put forward by the Government the onus lies heavily on the Appellant to prove the absence of any heir of the Respondent anywhere in the world. Normally, the Court frowns on the estate being taken by escheat unless the essential conditions for escheat are fully and completely satisfied. Further,… Read More BHAGAT RAM (SINCE DECEASED) THRU HIS LR SMT. SAGAR DEVI AND ORS Vs. KULDIP RAJ [ALL HC 2001 HIMACHAL PRADESH]
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. … Read More STATE (THROUGH) CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Vs. SHRI KALYAN SINGH (FORMER CM OF UP)[ALL SC 2017 APRIL]
September 07, 2018: LAND ACQUISITION-Any act done by the parties in relation to the subject matter of the appeals after the impugned order, cannot be pressed into service to support the impugned order. In other words, the legality and correctness of the impugned order has to be examined in the light of reasoning contained in the impugned order and not on the basis of the acts done by the parties subsequent to the passing of impugned order. It is for this reason the acts done by the party subsequent to passing of the impugned order are of no relevance for deciding the present appeals. APPEAL ALLOWED.… Read More Mysore Urban Development Authority Vs. K.M. Chikkathayamma & Ors.[ALL SC 2018 September]
September 6, 2018:-SECTION 377of IPC-Homosexuality-It is declared that insofar as Section 377 criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults (i.e. persons above the age of 18 years who are competent to consent) in private, is violative of Articles 14, 15, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. It is, however, clarified that such consent must be free consent,… Read More Navtej Singh Johar & Ors. Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice [ALL SC 2018 September]
September 6, 2018-Writ Petitions under Article 32-Army Service Corps-The Officers belonging to the ASC, Army Ordinance Corps, and Electronic and Mechanical Engineers, i.e. the services stream, do not constitute a common cadre with those serving in the Arms, and Arms Support for the purposes of promotion.4 As a result, they were not entitled to be considered for promotion to the rank of Colonel against the vacancies created in pursuance of the implementation of the AVS Committee Report.
The Petitioners have contended that the Posting Orders passed by the Respondents posting them to operational areas/units is violative of their Fundamental Rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. The Petitioners have, however, failed to substantiate how their Fundamental Rights have been violated. Postings and transfers are a necessary incident of service. Hence, the grievance, if any, cannot be entertained under Article 32.… Read More Maj. Amod Kumar Vs. Union of India & ANR. [ALL SC 2018 SEPTEMBER]