A. Geetha vs State of Tamil Nadu and ANR-04/09/2006-Writ of Habeas corpus dismissed-Penal Code, 1860—Section 366—Kidnapping and inducing woman—Detenu procuring innocent poor girls and under guise of employment forcing them into prostitution—Detenue declared ‘immoral traffic offender’ and detained under Section 3(2) of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982—All representations submitted by detenu were placed before Advisory Board as well as before Government, which were duly considered and rejected—Subjective satisfaction of authorities to detain detenu cannot be interfered with
A. K. Gopalan Versus State of Madras 19/5/1950-Keywords-Due process of Law-Procedure established by Law⇔ Under our Constitution, our life and personal liberty are balanced by restrictions on the rights of the citizens as laid down in Art. 19 and by the checks put upon the State by…
A. N. Roy Commissioner of Police and ANOTHER Vs Suresh Sham Singh-04/07/2006-STATUTORY INTERPRETATION-It is now well settled principle of law that the Court cannot enlarge the scope of legislation or intention when the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous. Narrow and pedantic construction may not always be given effect to. Courts should avoid a construction, which would reduce the legislation to futility. It is also well settled that every statute is to be interpreted without any violence to its language. It is also trite that when an expression is capable of more than one meaning, the court would attempt to resolve the ambiguity in a manner consistent with the purpose of the provision, having regard to the great consequences of the alternative constructions.
A.Subramanian and Anr. Vs. R. Pannerselvam-08/02/2021-SUIT FOR INJUNCTION-It is trite law that, in a suit for declaration of title, the burden always lies on the Plaintiff to make out and establish a clear case for granting such a declaration and the weakness, if any, of the case set up by the Defendants would not be a ground to grant relief to the Plaintiff. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down by Supreme Court in the above cases. But coming to the facts in the present case the present suit giving rise to this appeal, was not a suit for declaration of title and possession rather the suit was filed for injunction.
Abdul Rehman and Others Vs K.M. Anees-ul-Haq-14/11/2011-Penal Code, 1860—Sections 211 and 500—Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 195, 340 and 439—Bail proceedings are judicial proceedings—Any offence punishable under Section 211, IPC could be taken cognizance of only at instance of court in relation to whose proceedings same was committed or who finally dealt with that case—Bar contained in Section 195, Cr.P.C. was clearly attracted to complaint filed by respondent—Impugned orders quashed.
Abhijit Das Vs. State of Tripura-20/01/2019-The sentence is altered to the period already undergone SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Act: Section 324 IPC [Criminal Appeal No. 148 of 2017 @ Special Leave Petition (CRL.) No. 9253 of 2014] KURIAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. While issuing…
Abhinandan Jha and others Vs Dinesh Mishra-17/04/1967-It will be seen that the Code, as such does not use the expression ‘charge-sheet’ or ‘final report’. But is understood in the Police Manual containing Rules and Regulations, that a report by the police, filed under Section 170 of the Code, is referred to as a ‘charge-sheet’. But in respect of the reports sent under Section 169 i. e., when there is no sufficient evidence to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, it is termed variously, in different States, as either ‘referred charge’, ‘final report’, or ‘Summary’.
ADI PHEROZSHAH GANDHI Vs. H.M. SEERVAI, ADVOCATE GENERAL OF MAHARASHTRA, BOMBAY – 21/08/1970-In a civil proceeding the decision of a criminal court is not res judicata. To give an example, if a person is involved in a traffic offence in which some one is injured he may in the criminal court receive a light sentence but if he is sued in a civil court for heavy damages he can plead and prove that he was not negligent or that accident was due to the contributory negligence of the defendant. The decision of the criminal court would not preclude him from raising this issue before the civil court.
Agarwal Tracom Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors-27/11/2017-It is true that the rule of exhaustion of alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion, but it is difficult to fathom any reason why the High Court should entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and pass interim order ignoring the fact that the petitioner can avail effective alternative remedy by filing application, appeal, revision, etc. and the particular legislation contains a detailed mechanism for redressal of his grievance.
Ajayinder Sangwan and Ors. Vs. Bar Council of Delhi & Ors-5/2/2018-y means of this application, the applicant, who is practicing as an advocate and is enrolled with the Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh seeks a direction to conduct elections and direct the Andhra Pradesh Bar Council and Telangana State Bar Council to conduct election as per the scheduled declared by this Court.
Ajayinder Sangwan vs Bar Council Of Delhi-23/8/2017-The respective State Bar Councils shall publish a Final Electoral Roll by including the names and particulars of such advocates whose degrees attached with the application forms have been verified by the concerned University authorities. The names of all such advocates who have not removed the defects in the application forms already submitted within the specified time and also such persons whose degrees on verification have been found false or fake by the University authorities shall not be included in the Electoral Rolls.
AKSHAY KUMAR SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS-19/03/2020-The consistent view taken by this Court that the exercise of power of judicial review of the decision taken by His Excellency the President of India in Mercy Petition is very limited.Keeping in view the above principles, when we considered the grounds raised by the petitioner, we do not find any ground to hold that there was non-application of mind by the President of India. Insofar as the alleged torture of the petitioner in the prison, as we have held in earlier Writ Petition (criminal) Diary No. 3334 of 2020, the alleged torture in the prison cannot be a ground for review of the order of rejection of the Mercy Petition by the President of India.
Alakh Alok Srivastava Vs. Union of India & Ors.-1/5/2018-Section 37 provides that the Special Court shall try cases in camera and in the presence of the parents of the child or any other person in whom the child has trust or confidence; Section 36 casts a duty on the Special Court to ensure that the child is not exposed in any way to the accused at the time of recording of the evidence while at the same time ensuring that the accused is in a position to hear the statement of the child and communicate with his advocate.
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs State of West Bengal-11/11/2009-Penal Code, 1860—Section 306 read with Section 107—abetment of suicide—In cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commission of suicide—Act of abetment by person charged with said offence must be proved and established by prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306—Merely on allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to time of occurrence on the part of accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. Error! No text of specified style in document. vs. Error! No text of specified style in document.
Ameet Lalchand Shah and Others Vs. Rishabh Enterprises and Another-3/5/2018-An arbitration agreement means an agreement which is enforceable in law and the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is on the basis of an arbitration clause contained in the arbitration agreement. However, in a case where the parties alleged that the arbitration agreement is vitiated on account of fraud, the Court may refuse to refer the parties to arbitration.
AMIT SAHNI Vs COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS-07/10/2020-We have to make it unequivocally clear that public ways and public spaces cannot be occupied in such a manner and that too indefinitely. Democracy and dissent go hand in hand, but then the demonstrations expressing dissent have to be in designated places alone. The present case was not even one of protests taking place in an undesignated area, but was a blockage of a public way which caused grave inconvenience to commuters. We cannot accept the plea of the applicants that an indeterminable number of people can assemble whenever they choose to protest.
Amrutbhai Shambhubhai Patel Vs. Sumanbhai Kantibhai Patel & Ors.2/2/2017-the scheme of Sections 154, 157 and 173 in particular of the Cr.P.C and the pattern of consequences to follow in the two contingencies referred to herein above, this Court propounded that in case the Magistrate is not inclined to take cognizance of the offence and issue process, the informant must be given an opportunity of being heard so that he can make his submissions to persuade the Magistrate to take cognizance of the offence and issue process.
Anand Kumar Sharma Vs. Bar Council of India through Secretary & Another-1/3/2019-Suppressing the fact at the time of seeking enrolment in the Bar Council pertains to being in Government service in the State of Himachal Pradesh and involvement in a criminal case and Subsequent acquittal cannot come to the rescue an applicant. Section 26 of the Advocates Act, 1961 confers power on the Bar Council of India to remove the name of a person who entered on the Roll of Advocates by misrepresentation.
Anju Chaudhary vs State Of U.P.& Anr-13/12/2012-A cardinal question of public importance and one that is likely to arise more often than not in relation to the lodging of the First Information Report (FIR) with the aid of Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, ‘the Code’) or otherwise independently within the ambit of Section 154 of the Code is as to whether there can be more than one FIR in relation to the same incident or different incidents arising from the same occurrence.
Apex Court is in favour of disclosing marks of Main Exam before conducting viva-voce in Judicial Services-13/12/2019-Pranav Verma & Others Vs. The Registrar General of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh & anr-As regards the petitioners' plea that marks of the Main Exam should be disclosed before conducting viva-voce, we are of the considered opinion that such a practice may not insulate the desired transparency, rather will invite criticism of likelihood of bias or favourtism.As the written examination assesses knowledge and intellectual abilities of a candidate, the interview is aimed at assessing their overall intellectual and personal qualities which are imperative to hold a judicial post.
Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors- 27/11/2020-Court's power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while considering the applications for bail since the petitioner is already in Judicial custody. The legislature has provided specific remedy under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for applying for regular bail.
Aruna Oswal vs Pankaj Oswal & ors-06/07/2020-the proceedings before the NCLT filed under sections 241 and 242 of the Act should not be entertained because of the pending civil dispute and considering the minuscule extent of holding of 0.03%, that too, acquired after filing a civil suit in company securities, of respondent no. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, in order to maintain the proceedings, the respondent should have waited for the decision of the right, title and interest, in the civil suit concerning shares in question.
Asgar & Ors. Vs. Mohan Varma & Ors-05/02/2019-An issue which the appellants might and ought to have asserted in the earlier round of proceedings is deemed to have been directly and substantially in issue. The High Court was, in this view of the matter, entirely justified in coming to the conclusion that the failure of the appellants to raise a claim would result in the application of the principle of constructive res judicata both having regard to the provisions of Sections 4 and 5 of the Act of 1958 and to the provisions of Order XXI Rules 97 to 101 of the CPC.
Ashoksinh Jayendrasinh Vs. State of Gujarat – 07/05/19-Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC- Life imprisonment converted into acquittal by giving benefit of doubt-Supreme Court would be slow to interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below. In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with unless shown to be perverse (vide Mahesh Dattatray Thirthkar v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 11 SCC 141). Where the appreciation of evidence is erroneous, the Supreme Court would certainly appreciate the evidence.
Assam Public Works Vs. Union of India & Ors. 13/08/ 2019-The entire NRC exercise having been performed and the same cannot be now ordered to be reopened by initiation of a fresh exercise on certain other parameters that have been suggested on behalf of the intervenors/applicants on the strength of the provisions of Section 3(1)(a) of the Act.
Authorised Officer, Indian Overseas Bank and Another Vs M/s. Ashok Saw Mill-16/07/2009-Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002—Sections 13 and 17—Enforcement of security interest—Jurisdiction of DRT with regard to post 13(4) events—DRT is entitled to question the action taken by secured creditor and transactions entered into by virtue of Section 13(4)—DRT has been vested with authority to even set aside a transaction including sale and to restore possession to borrower in appropriate cases—DRT has jurisdiction to deal with a post 13(4) situation—Action taken by a secured creditor in terms of Section 13(4) is open to scrutiny and cannot only be set aside but even status quo ante can be restored by DRT.
Balwinder Kaur Vs Hardeep Singh 18/11/1997-Even where the Family Courts are not functioning, the objects and principles underlying the constitution of these Courts can be kept in view by the civil Courts trying matrimonial causes.
BENEDICT DENIS KINNY VS TULIP BRIAN MIRANDA & ORS-19/03/2020-ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION-When a citizen has right to judicial review against any decision of statutory authority, the High Court in exercise of judicial review had every jurisdiction to maintain the status quo so as to by lapse of time, the petition may not be infructuous.
BGS SGS SOMA JV Vs. NHPC Ltd-10/12/2019-ARBITRATION-whether the "seat" of the arbitration proceedings is New Delhi or Faridabad, consequent upon which a petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1996 may be filed dependent on where the seat of arbitration is located.
Bhagwant Singh Vs Commissioner of Police and another- 25/04/1985-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Sections 154(1) and 157(1)- The injured person or any relative of the deceased, though not entitled to notice from the Magistrate, has locus to appear before the Magistrate at the time of consideration of the report, if he otherwise comes to know that the report is going to be considered by the Magistrate and if he wants to make his submissions in regard to the report, the Magistrate is bound to hear him.
Bhagwat Sharan (Dead Thr. Lrs.) vs Purushottam & Ors-03/04/2020-Hindu Undivided Family-It is held that where one of the coparceners separated himself from other members of the joint family there was no presumption that the rest of coparceners continued to constitute a joint family. However, it is also held that at the same time there is no presumption that because one member of the family has separated, the rest of the family is no longer a joint family.
Bhagwati Prasad Sah and others Vs Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer and another-07/05/1951-Evidence Act, 1872—Sections 101 to 104—Burden of proof—Joint Hindu Family—Presumption of—A Hindu family is presumed to be joint unless proved to the contrary—The burden of proving the status of the family is on the person claiming the relief on the basis of such status—It is a question to be determined in each case.
Bhagwati Prasad Versus Chandramaul- 19/10/1965-If a party asks for a relief on a clear and specific ground, and in the issues or at the trial, no other ground is covered either directly or by necessary implication, it would not be open to the said party to attempt to sustain the same claim on a ground which is entirely new.
Bhawanipore Banking Corporation Ltd Vs Gouri Shanker Sharma-14/03/1950-Limitation Act, 1908—Article 182—Limitation for execution—Computation of—Review of decree—Dismissal of review application in default—Pendency of proceedings seeking restoration of review petition—Pendency of appeal against the order rejecting the restoration application—Clause (2) and (3) have no application on the basis of pendency of such proceedings.
BHAWNA BAI VS GHANSHYAM AND OTHERS- 03/12/2019-For framing the charges under Section 228 Crl.P.C., the judge is not required to record detailed reasons. As pointed out earlier, at the stage of framing the charge, the court is not required to hold an elaborate enquiry; only prima facie case is to be seen.
Binod Kumar Versus State of Jharkhand and Others – 29/03/2011-Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002—Sections 4, 45(1A), 43 and 44-The investigation under the PML Act is solely and exclusively within the jurisdiction and domain of the Enforcement Directorate, which is of course subject to the exercise of powers by the Central Government under Section 45(1A) of the said Act.
Bipin Shantilal Panchal Vs State of Gujarat and Another- 22/02/2001-Trial—Delay in proceeding-Whenever an objection is raised during evidence taking stage regarding the admissibility of any material or item of oral evidence the trial Court can make a note of such objection and mark the objected document tentatively as an exhibit in the case (or record the objected part of the oral evidence) subject to such objections to be decided at the last stage in the final judgment.
Bipinchandra Jaisinghbai Shah Vs Prabhavati-19/10/1956-In England until 1858 the only remedy for desertion was a suit for restitution of conjugal rights. But by the Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857, desertion without cause for two years upwards was made a ground for a suit for judicial separation. It was not till 1937 that by the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1937, desertion without cause for a period of three years immediately preceding the institutions of proceedings was made a ground for divorce. The law has now been consolidated in the Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950 (14 Geo. VI, C. 25). It would thus appear that desertion as affording a cause of action for a suit for dissolution of marriage is a recent growth even in England.
Birendra Prasad Sah Vs. State of Bihar & ANR – 08/05/19-Section 138 of the NI Act, 1881-Issuance of successive notices is permissible under the provisions of Section 138-Condonation of Delay-The CJM condoned the delay on the cause which was shown by the appellant and it is evident that the appellant had indicated sufficient cause for seeking condonation of the delay in the institution of the complaint.
Boloram Bordoloi Vs Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and Ors-08/02/2021-it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order on the basis thereof, no further detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment.
Bondada Gajapathi Rao vs State of Andhra pradesh-16/10/1964-The appellant was convicted under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment for life by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. He was granted special leave to appeal by this Court. During the pendency of this appeal the appellant died on August 30, 1963. After his death his sons and daughters applied to this Court on October 5, 1963 for permission to continue to prosecute the appeal. Their petition is all that we are concerned with at the present moment.
Brajnandan Sinha Vs Jyoti Narain-08/11/1955-Contempt Of Courts Act, 1952—Section 3—Court—MEANING of—Courts subordinate to High Court—MEANING of—Court of a quasi judicial tribunal created under Statute is not covered by the EXPRESSION ‘court’.
Canara Bank Vs. N.G. Subbaraya Setty & ANR-20/04/2018-One well-known exception is that the doctrine cannot impart finality to an erroneous decision on the jurisdiction of a Court. Likewise, an erroneous judgment on a question of law, which sanctions something that is illegal, also cannot be allowed to…
Central Bureau of Investigation & ANR. Vs. Mohd. Parvez Abdul Kayuum Etc-05/07/19-PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION-the provisions of Article 32 do not specifically indicate who can move the court. In the absence of such a provision in that respect, it is plain that the petitioner may be anyone in whom the law has conferred power to maintain an action of such nature. It is open to anybody who is interested in the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for relief.
Chaitu Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand-20/11/2019-RAPE-The attempt to commit an offence begins when the accused commences to do an act with the necessary intention. In the present case, the accused appellant pounced upon the complainant victim, sat upon her and lifted her petticoat while the complainant victim protested against his advancements and wept.
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao Versus Ashalata S. Guram-25/09/1986-Statutory tenant is in the same position as a contractual tenant until the decree for eviction was passed against him and the rights of a contractual tenant included the right to create licence even if he was the transferor of an interest which was not in fact the transfer of interest.
Chandigarh Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus State of Punjab & Anr-14/2/2020-Arbitration Award-an Award can neither be remitted nor set aside merely on the ground that it does not contain reasons in support of the conclusion or decision reached in it except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission requires it to give reasons. In that light the learned advocate would point out that in the instant case the agreement between the parties would require that the learned Arbitrator has to assign reasons for the Award and when such requirement is stipulated the Award passed without reasons would not be sustainable being contrary to the explicit requirement in the contract between the parties.
CHANDRA PRAKASH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN – 09/05/2014-The basic ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy are: (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) the agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either (a) an illegal act; or (b) an act which…
Charansingh Vs State of Maharashtra and others-24/03/2021-A GD entry recording the information by the informant disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence can be treated as FIR in a given case and the police has the power and jurisdiction to investigate the same. The appellant has been summoned for a preliminary enquiry only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. If the preliminary enquiry discloses the cognizable offence, then a first information report will be registered against the appellant.
Chaturbhuj Versus Sita Bai-27/11/2007-Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 125—Phrase “unable to maintain herself”—Meaning of—It would mean that means available to deserted wife while she was living with her husband and would not take within itself efforts made by wife after desertion to survive somehow.
Chief Election Commissioner of India Vs. M.R Vijayabhaskar & Ors-06/05/2021-we must emphasize the need for judges to exercise caution in off-the-cuff remarks in open court, which may be susceptible to misinterpretation. Language, both on the Bench and in judgments, must comport with judicial propriety. Language is an important instrument of a judicial process which is sensitive to constitutional values. Judicial language is a window to a conscience sensitive to constitutional ethos. Bereft of its understated balance, language risks losing its symbolism as a protector of human dignity.
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER VS HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AND-04/03/2020-If The information to be accessed/certified copies on the judicial side to be obtained through the mechanism provided under the High Court Rules, the provisions of the RTI Act shall not be resorted to.Rule 151 of the Gujarat High Court Rules stipulating a third party to have access to the information/obtaining the certified copies of the documents or orders requires to file an application/affidavit stating the reasons for seeking the information, is not inconsistent with the provisions of the RTI Act;
Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia Vs. M/s. Krishna Wax Pvt. Ltd-14/11/2019-Writ in Excise Matter-It has been laid down by this Court that the excise law is a complete code in itself and it would normally not be appropriate for a Writ Court to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the concerned person must first raise all the objections before the authority who had issued a show cause notice and the redressal in terms of the existing provisions of the law could be taken resort to if an adverse order was passed against such person.
COMMON CAUSE, A REGISTERED SOCIETY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS- 03/08/1999-Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or reconstruction. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility Yet in the realm of law the Courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality ot decision legally and properly made Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage ot justice Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest Court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the Courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice,
D. Sasi Kumar Vs. Soundararajan-23/09/2019-If as on the date of filing the petition the requirement subsists and it is proved, the same would be sufficient irrespective of the time-lapse in the judicial process coming to an end.
D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal- 21/10/2010-Key Words:– Maintenance-Delay-a relationship in the nature of marriage-Polimony-common law marriage⇒ It is not for Supreme Court to legislate or amend law—Parliament has used the expression “relationship in nature of marriage” and not live-in-relationship—Court in garb of interpretation cannot change…
D.S. NAKARA AND OTHERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) – 17/12/1982-Do pensioners entitled to receive superannuation or retiring pension under Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (‘1972 Rules’ for short) form a class as a whole? Is the date of retirement a relevant consideration for eligibility when a revised formula…
Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali through LRS. & Ors- 09/07/2020-The words "right to sue" means the right to seek relief by means of legal proceedings. The right to sue accrues only when the cause of action arises. The suit must be instituted when the right asserted in the suit is infringed, or when there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe such right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. Order VII Rule 11(d) provides that where a suit appears from the averments in the plaint to be barred by any law, the plaint shall be rejected.
Dalbir Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors-02/07/19-Summary General Court Martial-In service matters the past conduct, both positive and negative will be relevant not only while referring to the misconduct but also in deciding the proportionality of the punishment, the Court should be cautious while considering the case of an officer/soldier/employee of a disciplined force and the same yardstick or sympathetic consideration as in other cases cannot be applied. The resources of the country are spent on training a soldier to retaliate and fight when the integrity of the nation is threatened and there is aggression. In such grave situation if a soldier turns his back to the challenge, it will certainly amount to cowardice.