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

Moran M. Baselios marthoma Mathews II and OTHERS Vs State of Kerala and OTHERS [ALL SC 2007 APRIL]

AIR 2007 SCW 4367 : JT 2007 (6) SC 282 : (2007) 6 SCALE 134 : (2007) 6 SCC 517 (SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) Moran M. Baselios marthoma Mathews II and OTHERS Appellant Versus State of Kerala and OTHERS Respondent (Before : S. B. Sinha And Markandey Katju, JJ.) Civil Appeal Nos. 5460-5466 of 2004,… Read More Moran M. Baselios marthoma Mathews II and OTHERS Vs State of Kerala and OTHERS [ALL SC 2007 APRIL]

Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Vs Central Valuation Board and Ors[SC 2007]

KEYWORDS: Valuation-Assessment of property tax The person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise. AIR 2007 SC 2276 : (2007) 7 SCR 430 : (2007) 6 SCC 668 : JT 2007 (8) SC 118 : (2007) 7 SCALE 546… Read More Bidhannagar (Salt Lake) Welfare Vs Central Valuation Board and Ors[SC 2007]

I. R. Coelho (dead) by L.Rs Vs State of Tamil Nadu [ALL SC 2007 JANUARY]

KEYWORDS:- Basic structures doctrine- Ninth schedule- Amending Constitution- DATE:- 11-01-2007 Whether on and after 24th April, 1973 when basic structures doctrine was propounded, it is permissible for the Parliament under Article 31B to immunize legislations from fundamental rights by inserting them into the Ninth Schedule and, if so, what is its effect on the power of… Read More I. R. Coelho (dead) by L.Rs Vs State of Tamil Nadu [ALL SC 2007 JANUARY]

West Bengal Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Rules, 2007

Published vide notification No. 2254-P, dated 8th May, 2007, published in the Kolkata Gazette, Extraordinary, Part 1, dated 8th May, 2007. In exercise of the power conferred by section 25 of the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005 (29 of 2005), the Governor is pleased hereby to make the following rules, namely :— 1. Short… Read More West Bengal Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Rules, 2007

It is settled legal position that court is to respond only to issue agitated before it and in case at the time of hearing issue was not taken the court cannot deal with it-SC

(2010) 96 AIC 241 : (2011) AIR(SC)Civil 53 : (2010) 6 ALLMR(SC) 949 : (2011) 2 AllWC 1592 : (2010) 83 ALR 709 : (2010) 3 ARC 632 : (2011) 2 ICC 684 : (2011) 1 RCR(Rent) 190 : (2011) 2 RecentApexJudgments(RAJ) 98 : (2011) 1 RentLR 315 : (2010) 11 SCALE 302 : (2010)… Read More It is settled legal position that court is to respond only to issue agitated before it and in case at the time of hearing issue was not taken the court cannot deal with it-SC

RBI guidelines for Prepaid Payment Instruments for Interoperability u/s 18 & 10(2) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007

Prepaid Payment Instruments (PPIs) – Guidelines for Interoperability RBI/2018-19/61 DPSS.CO.PD.No.808/02.14.006/2018-19 October 16, 2018 All Prepaid Payment Instrument Issuers, System Providers and System Participants Madam / Dear Sir, Prepaid Payment Instruments (PPIs) – Guidelines for Interoperability A reference is invited to the Master Direction DPSS.CO.PD.No.1164/02.14.006/2017-18 dated October 11, 2017 (updated as on December 29, 2017) on Issuance and… Read More RBI guidelines for Prepaid Payment Instruments for Interoperability u/s 18 & 10(2) of the Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007

Reserve Bank of India releases Dissent Note on Inter-Ministerial Committee for finalization of Amendments to PSS Act 2007

Date : Oct 19, 2018 Reserve Bank of India releases Dissent Note on Inter-Ministerial Committee for finalization of Amendments to PSS Act An Inter-Ministerial Committee for finalization of amendments to the Payment & Settlement Systems Act, 2007 was formed by the Government under the chairmanship of Secretary, Department of Economic Affairs. RBI was represented in the… Read More Reserve Bank of India releases Dissent Note on Inter-Ministerial Committee for finalization of Amendments to PSS Act 2007

COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Vs. CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE OF ARTISTS AND TECHNICIANS OF W.B. FILM AND TELEVISION [ALL SC 2017 MARCH]

While identifying the relevant market in a given case, the CCI is required to look at evidence that is available and relevant to the case at hand. The CCI has to define the boundaries of the relevant market as precisely as required by the circumstances of the case. Where appropriate, it may conduct its competition… Read More COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA Vs. CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE OF ARTISTS AND TECHNICIANS OF W.B. FILM AND TELEVISION [ALL SC 2017 MARCH]

Narayana Gramani & Ors. Vs. Mariammal & Ors [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]