United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Satinder Kaur @ Satwinder Kaur & Ors-U/S. 166/168 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988-The Constitution Bench in National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi & Ors[ (2017) 16 SCC 680]affirmed the view taken in Sarla Verma (supra) and Reshma Kumari (supra), and held that the age of the deceased should be the basis for applying the multiplier. Another three-judge bench in Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mandala Yadagari Goud & Ors.[(2019) 5 SCC 554] traced out the law on this issue, and held that the compensation is to be computed based on what the deceased would have contributed to support the dependants.
Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation Vs. Star Agriwarehousing and Collateral Management Ltd. & Ors-24/06/2020
In the matters of contract, the grant of interim order to restrain the successful bidders from executing the contract is not in public interest, more so, when the tender is for storage of food articles in the warehouses of the State Government undertaking.
While applying Article 227 Constitution, HC cannot act as Court of Appeal-MD. INAM VS SANJAY KR SINGHAL -26/06/2020
Art 227 of Constitution of India – It is a well settled principle of law, that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law.
Constitution of India, 1950—Article 311(2)—Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965—Rule 19(1)—Natural justice—Petitioner dismissed from service because of conviction by Criminal Court—In appeal dismissal was modified to one of compulsory retirement—No notice was issued before passing order of dismissal—No summary inquiry was held and no opportunity was given before passing order of dismissal or of compulsory retirement—Order liable to be set aside.
The legislature cannot violate the constitutional prohibitions by employing an indirect method.
SEDITION-The gist of the offence of ‘sedition’ is incitement to create public disorder by words spoken or written which have the tendency or the effect of bringing the Government established by law into hatred or contempt or creating disaffection in the sense of disloyalty to the State, in other words bringing the law into line with the law of sedition in England, as was the intention of the legislators when they introduced Section 124A into the Indian Penal Code in 1870 as aforesaid, the law will be within the permissible limits laid down in clause (2) of Article 19 of the Constitution.
QUANTUM OF PUNISHMENT-The learned counsel for the accused No. 5 was at pains to persuade us that the said accused is now about 70/75 years of age and at this distance of time, it may not be appropriate to send him back to jail. Taking overall view of the matter, we are not impressed by this submission. Even in case of offence under Section 326, IPC, which commended to the High Court, the same was punishable with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description which may extend to ten years and also liable to fine. Had it been a conviction under Section 326, as aforesaid, the sentence of only about five months in the facts of the present case, by no stretch of imagination, was adequate.
Whether the decree passed on a compromise can be challenged by the stranger to the proceedings in a separate suit?
The appellant could file a suit for protection of his right, title or interest devolved on the basis of the stated sale deed dated 6th January, 1984, allegedly executed by one of the party (Sampatiya) to the proceedings in the partition suit, which could be examined independently by the Court on its own merits in accordance with law.
The common parlance test”, “marketability test”, “popular meaning test” are all tools for interpretation to arrive at a decision on proper classification of a tariff entry. These tests, however, would be required to be applied if a particular tariff entry is capable of being classified in more than one heads.
Hyderabad Criminal Procedure Code-the accused was examined under S. 273, Hyderabad Criminal P.C. which corresponds to S. 342, Indian Criminal P.C., and on 5th of December following charges were framed against him under Ss. 123, 124, 330 and 177 read with S. 66, Hyderabad Penal Code. The cross-examination of 18 prosecution witnesses was finished before 26-1-1959, and the rest of the witnesses were cross-examined after that date.