This Constitution is the supreme law of the State-Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, any law inconsistent with this Constitution is invalid to the extent of the inconsistency.This Constitution shall be upheld and respected by all Fijians and the State,
including all persons holding public office, and the obligations imposed by this Constitution must be Fulfilled. Any attempt to establish a Government other than in compliance with this Constitution shall be unlawful.
Dr. Jaishri Laxmanrao Patil Vs. The Chief Minister & Ors-05/06/2021-The Maharashtra State Reservation (of seats for admission in educational institutions in the State and for appointments in the public services and posts under the State) for Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC) Act, 2018 as amended in 2019 granting 12% and 13% reservation for Maratha community in addition to 50% social reservation is not covered by exceptional circumstances as contemplated by Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney's case.
Mallappa Vs State of Karnataka-07/05/2021-SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Mallappa Vs State of Karnataka Criminal Appeal No. 1993 of 2010 Bench: N.V. Ramana, CJI., Surya Kant, Aniruddha Bose JJ. DATE: 07-05-2021 ACTS: Section 302/ 34 IPC JUDGMENT […]
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.
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. Vs. Cyrus Investments Pvt. Ltd. and Ors-26/03/2021-In an appeal under Section 423 of the Companies Act, 2013, this Court is concerned with questions of law arising out of the order of NCLAT. Therefore, we will not decide this prayer. It should be pointed out at this stage that Article 75 of the Articles of Association is nothing but a provision for an exit option (though one may think of it as an expulsion option). After attacking Article 75 before NCLT, the S.P. Group cannot ask this Court to go into the question of fixation of fair value compensation for exercising an exit option.
State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Jail Superintendent, Ropar and Ors-26/03/2021-The Court in exercise of power under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot curtail the fundamental rights of the citizens conferred under the Constitution and pass orders in violation of substantive provisions which are based on fundamental policy principles, yet when a case of the present nature arises, it may issue appropriate directions so that criminal trial is conducted in accordance with law. It is the obligation and duty of this Court to ensure free and fair trial.
Lt. Col. Nitisha and Ors. Vs. UOI and Ors-25/03/2021-Discrimination against women -The pattern of evaluation in Indian Army in case of women, by excluding subsequent achievements of the petitioners and failing to account for the inherent patterns of discrimination that were produced as a consequence of casual grading and skewed incentive structures, has resulted in indirect and systemic discrimination. This discrimination has caused an economic and psychological harm and an affront to their dignity.
Naresh Kumar Vs Kalawati and Ors-25/03/2021-A dying declaration is admissible in evidence under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It alone can also form the basis for conviction if it has been made voluntarily and inspires confidence. If there are contradictions, variations, creating doubts about its truthfulness, affecting its veracity and credibility or if the dying declaration is suspect, or the accused is able to create a doubt not only with regard to the dying declaration but also with regard to the nature and manner of death, the benefit of doubt shall have to be given to the accused. Therefore much shall depend on the facts of a case. There can be no rigid standard or yardstick for acceptance or rejection of a dying declaration.
Patricia Mukhim Vs State of Meghalaya- 25/03/2021-Disapprobation of governmental inaction cannot be branded as an attempt to promote hatred between different communities. Free speech of the citizens of this country cannot be stifled by implicating them in criminal cases, unless such speech has the tendency to affect public order. The sequitur of above analysis of the Facebook post made by the Appellant is that no case is made out against the Appellant for an offence under Section 153 A and 505 (1) (c) IPC.
State of Rajasthan and Ors Vs Love kush Meena-24/03/2021-Whether a benefit of doubt resulting in acquittal of the accused in a case charged under Sections 302,323,341/34 of the Indian Penal Code can create an opportunity for the accused to join as a constable in the Rajasthan Police service-NO- Any Govt circular favouring acquitted accused for job has to be read in the context of the judicial pronouncements that giving benefit of doubt would not entitle candidate for appointment.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Rajesh Dhiman Vs State of Himachal Pradesh-26/10/2020-Whether bias was caused by complainant also being the investigating officer?
Whether alternate version has been established and what is the effect of lack of independent witnesses?
Whether High Court erred in reversing acquittal in appeal?
Raveen Kumar vs State of Himachal Pradesh -26/10/2020-(A) What is the scope and essence of the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction against a judgment of acquittal?
(B) What is the extent of reliance upon a document with which the other side was not confronted with during cross-examination?
C) Whether non-examination of independent witnesses vitiates the prosecution case?
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.
Sarika Vs. The Administrator, Mahakaleshwar Mandir Committee, Ujjain, MP-1/9/2020-The original work in the temple is required to be restored. As assured by the Committee, let restoration work be done concerning eyesore painting by 15th December 2020. The Temple Committee is directed to ensure in future not to permit or resort to such painting and covering of the original work, objected by the Expert Committee. Let a report be submitted to this Court in this regard by 15th December 2020.
Mukesh Singh Vs. State (Narcotic Branch of Delhi)-31/08/2020-In a case where the informant himself is the investigator, by that itself cannot be said that the investigation is vitiated on the ground of bias or the like factor.-Case overruled: Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab (2018) 17 SCC 627 [Complainant can not be Investigator]
Vijay Mallya vs.State Bank of India & Ors-31/08/2020-Though the scope of review was thus limited, we have carefully considered the submissions advanced by Mr. Munim. Those submissions were dealt with and rejected in the judgment under review. In our considered view, the attempt on part of the respondent No.3 to have re-hearing in the matter cannot be permitted nor do the submissions make out any “error apparent on record” to justify interference in review jurisdiction.
IN RE: PRASHANT BHUSHAN AND ANR-31/08/2020-The Court, from the very beginning, was desirous of giving quietus to this matter. Directly or indirectly, the contemnor was persuaded to end this matter by tendering an apology and save the grace of the institution as well as the individual, who is an officer of the Court. However, for the reasons best known to him he has neither shown regret in spite of our persuasion or the advice of the learned Attorney General. Thus, we have to consider imposing an appropriate sentence upon him.
PRANEETH K AND ORS. VS UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ORS-28/08/2020-The Guidelines were issued with the object that a uniform academic calendar be followed by all the Universities and final /terminal examinations be held. The State Governments or State Disaster Management Authority in exercise of power under Disaster Management Act, 2005 has no jurisdiction to take a decision that the students of final year/terminal students should be promoted on the basis of earlier year assessment and internal assessment.
Rhea Chakraborty vs The State of Bihar & Ors-19/08/2020-CBI INVESTIGATION-At the stage of investigation, they were not required to transfer the FIR to Mumbai police. For the same reason, the Bihar government was competent to give consent for entrustment of investigation to the CBI and as such the ongoing investigation by the CBI is held to be lawful.
Preet Pal Singh vs The State of UP and Ars-14/08/2020-SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE-In considering an application for suspension of sentence, the Appellate Court is only to examine if there is such patent infirmity in the order of conviction that renders the order of conviction prima facie erroneous. Where there is evidence that has been considered by the Trial Court, it is not open to a Court considering application under Section 389 to re-assess and/or re-analyze the same evidence and take a different view, to suspend the execution of the sentence and release the convict on bail.
M. Radha Hari Seshu Vs The State of Telangana-14/08/2020-Sections 304B, 498A and 302, IPC-we do not wish to go into the merits of the matter at this stage. However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel and other material placed on record and further taking into account that the appellant is in jail since 15th December 2016, we deem it appropriate that it is a fit case to suspend the sentence imposed on the appellant and to enlarge the appellant on bail, pending Criminal Appeal
IN RE- PRASHANT BHUSHAN & ANR. …. ALLEGED CONTEMNOR(S)-14/08/2020-The scurrilous/malicious attacks by the alleged contemnor No.1 are not only against one or two judges but the entire Supreme Court in its functioning of the last six years. Such an attack which tends to create disaffection and disrespect for the authority of this Court cannot be ignored. Recently, the Supreme Court in the cases of National Lawyers Campaign for Judical Transparency and Reforms and others vs. Union of India and others15 and Re: Vijay Kurle & Ors (supra) has suo motu taken action against Advocates who had made scandalous allegations against the individual judge/judges. Here the alleged contemnor has attempted to scandalise the entire institution of the Supreme Court.
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.
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.
Reepak Kansal Vs. Secretary-General, Supreme Court of India & Ors 06/07/2020-Advocates are treated with respect in society. People repose immense faith in the judiciary and judicial system and the first person who deals with them is a lawyer. Litigants repose faith in a lawyer and share with them privileged information. They put their signatures wherever asked by a Lawyer. An advocate is supposed to protect their rights and to ensure that untainted justice delivered to his cause
How to compute compensation payable to the dependants of the deceased under MV Act-United India Insurance Vs. Satinder Kaur-30/06/2020-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.
State of Rajasthan vs Mehram & Ors-06/05/2020-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.
Triloki Nath Singh vs Anirudh Singh (d) Thr. Lrs & Ors-06/05/2020-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.
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.
NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-03/04/2020-INCOME TAX-whether the revenue has sufficient reasons to believe that undisclosed income of the asseessee has escaped assessment and therefore there are grounds to issue notice. An assessing officer can only reopen an assessment if he has ‘reason to believe’ that undisclosed income has escaped assessment. Mere change of opinion of the assessing officer is not a sufficient to meet the standard of ‘reason to believe’.
RAJA @ AYYAPPAN VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU-01/04/2020-Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates that to make the confession of a coaccused admissible in evidence, there has to be a joint trial. If there is no joint trial, the confession of a co accused is not at all admissible in evidence and, therefore, the same cannot be taken as evidence against the other coaccused.
M. SUBRAMANIAM AND ANOTHER VS S. JANAKI AND ANOTHER- 20/03/2020-FARE INVESTIGATION-Section 156(3) CrPC is wide enough to include all such powers in a Magistrate which are necessary for ensuring a proper investigation, and it includes the power to order registration of an FIR and of ordering a proper investigation if the Magistrate is satisfied that a proper investigation has not been done, or is not being done by the police.
PAWAN KUMAR GUPTA Vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI -20/03/2020-When the power is vested in the very high contitutional authority, it must be presumed that the said authority had acted carefully after considering all the aspects of the matter. It cannot be said that His Excellency the President of India did not consider the mercy petition with open mind filed by the petitioner Pawan Kumar Gupta.
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.
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.
MUKESH VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI-19/03/2020-NIRBHYA DEATH ROW ACCUSED-In this writ petition, the petitioner has raised the points on merits of the matter:- (i) That there was no proper consideration of evidence; (ii) regarding the disability of Ram Singh (accused no.1) who subsequently allegedly committed suicide in the prison; and (iii) raising doubts about the arrest of the petitioner at Karoli, Rajasthan.
TULSA DEVI NIROLA AND OTHERS VS RADHA NIROLA AND OTHERS-04/03/2020-Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925-The family pension did not constitute a part of the estate of the deceased.The right to family pension in more than one wife being conditional in nature and not absolute, in view of nomination in favour of respondent no.1 alone, appellant no 1 in the facts of the case can also be said to have waived her statutory right to pension in lieu of benefits received by her under the settlement deed.
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;
NIRMALA KOTHARI VS UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD-04/03/2020-Section Section 149(2)(a)(ii) -While hiring a driver the employer is expected to verify if the driver has a driving licence. If the driver produces a licence which on the face of it looks genuine, the employer is not expected to further investigate into the authenticity of the licence unless there is cause to believe otherwise.
INTERNET AND MOBILE ASSOCIATION OF INDIA Vs RESERVE BANK OF INDIA-04/03/2020-Crypto Currency-The petitioner in the first writ petition is a specialized industry body known as ‘Internet and Mobile Association of India’ which represents the interests of online and digital services industry. The petitioners in the second writ petition comprise of a few companies which run online crypto assets exchange platforms, the shareholders/founders of these companies and a few individual crypto assets traders.
K. Virupaksha & Anr. Vs The State of Karnataka & Anr-03/02/2020 -Criminal Complaint in connection with SARFAESI- DRT Act-Complainant filed the complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. The said complaint being taken on record, the learned Magistrate has referred the same for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. and to submit a report. Based on such direction an FIR was registered.
DILIP SHAW @ SANATAN & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS-02/03/2020-Common object-The fact that there was short time gap and little deviation in describing the exact place of occurrence by themselves cannot detach the involvement of the persons who had hurled the bombs from rest of the accused persons altogether, who were part of the same group. They were harbouring common object, which fact emerges from various factors including having assembled therewith weapons of assault and their participation in the acts of assault. These weapons were capable of causing death. The act of hurling bombs was in very close proximity in time to the act of assault on Sarban.
Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah Versus State of Gujarat & Ors-02/03/2020-Criminal-Whether the appellant-one of the co-accused against whom the charge-sheet is already filed and against whom the trial is in progress, is required to be heard and/or has any locus in the proceedings under Section 173(8) CrPC – further investigation qua one another accused namely Shri Bhaumik against whom no charge-sheet has been filed till date?
UNION BANK OF INDIA Vs RAJAT INFRASTRUCTURE PVT- 02/03/2020-A guarantor or a mortgagor, who has mortgaged its property to secure the repayment of the loan, stands on the same footing as a borrower and if he wants to file an appeal, he must comply with the terms of Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act.
DR. SHAH FAESAL AND ORS. VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANR- 02/03/2020-Supreme Court is of the opinion that there is no conflict between the judgments in the Prem Nath Kaul case (supra) and the Sampat Prakash case (supra). The plea of the counsel to refer the present matter to a larger Bench on this ground is therefore rejected
Sri-Renganathaswamy Vs. P.K. Thoppulan Chettiar- 19/02/2020-Specific endowment-The Deed of Settlement must be examined as a whole to determine the true intention of the settlor. Where the settlor seeks to divest himself of the property entirely for a religious purpose, a public religious charity is created.
Gelus Ram Sahu and others Vs. Dr. Surendra Kumar Singh and others-18/02/2020-It is the well-settled legal position that an amendment can be considered to be declaratory and clarificatory only if the statute itself expressly and unequivocally states that it is a declaratory and clarificatory provision. If there is no such clear statement in the statute itself, the amendment will not be considered to be merely declaratory or clarificatory.
Soumitra Kumar Nahar Vs. Parul Nahar-18/02/2020-While deciding the welfare of the child, it is not the view of one spouse alone which has to be taken into consideration. The Courts should decide the issue of custody on a paramount consideration which is in the best interest of the child who is the victim in the custody battle.
SANTOSH PRASAD @ SANTOSH KUMAR VS THE STATE OF BIHAR-14/2/2020-Sections 376 and 450 of the IPC-It cannot be disputed that there can be a conviction solely based on the evidence of the prosecutrix. However, the evidence must be reliable and trustworthy. Therefore, now let us examine the evidence of the prosecutrix and consider whether in the facts and circumstances of the case is it safe to convict the accused solely based on the deposition of the prosecutrix, more particularly when neither the medical report/evidence supports nor other witnesses support and it has come on record that there was an enmity between both the parties.
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.
VINAY SHARMA Vs UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS-14/2/2020 -Nirbhaya’s case-Vinay Sharma – a death-row convict-we do not find any ground for exercise of judicial review of the order of the President of India rejecting the petitioner’s mercy petition and this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Om Prakash Vs. Suresh Kumar-30/01/2020-The principal argument of the appellant is that the statement made by his counsel before the High Court was not binding on him, as it was made without his instructions.We hasten to add neither the client nor the court is bound by the lawyer's statements or admissions as to matters of law or legal conclusions. Thus, according to generally accepted notions of professional responsibility, lawyers should follow the client's instructions rather than substitute their judgment for that of the client. We may add that in some cases, lawyers can make decisions without consulting the client.
Sushila Aggarwal and others Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and another – 29/1/2020-Anticipatory Bail-An order of anticipatory bail should not be “blanket” in the sense that it should not enable the accused to commit further offences and claim relief of indefinite protection from arrest. It should be confined to the offence or incident, for which apprehension of arrest is sought, in relation to a specific incident. It cannot operate in respect of a future incident that involves commission of an offence.
Jasmeet Kaur Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr-12/12/ 2019-It was evident from the conduct of the parties that they had abandoned their domicile of origin i.e. India, had set up their matrimonial home in the U.S. and raised their daughter in that environment. When the Petitioner - wife decided not to return to the U.S. in January, 2016 she acted in her self-interest, and not in the best interest of her children.
Saeeda Khatoon Arshi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr-10/12/2019-A protest petition had not been filed by the appellant when the report was submitted under Section 173 did not render the court powerless to exercise its powers under Section 319 on the basis of the evidence which had emerged during the course of the trial.
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Sudarshana Chatterjee-10/12/2019-Summoning of officers to the court-The High Court, in our view, was not right in directing the Principal Secretary to appear in the court and explain the reason for passing the order dated 04.01.2019. Observing that merely because an order has been passed by the officer, it does not warrant the personal presence of the officer in the Court and summoning of officers to the Court and eventually affect the public at large
Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dafadar Kartar Singh & Anr- 9/12/2019-Summary Court Martial-The judgments of acquittal may be reversed or otherwise disturbed only for very substantial and compelling reasons. Very substantial and compelling reasons exist when the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declarations/ report of the ballistic expert, etc.
ONGC LTD. & ORS. Vs CONSUMER EDUCATION RESEARCH SOCIETY & ORS- 09/12/2019-Consumer- whether any amount is being paid by the employees for contribution to the services rendered by the Trust, it is apparent that the service, if any, is being rendered by the Trust and not by the ONGC. Therefore, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the claimants and the ONGC.
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS Vs PHULPARI KUMARI- 06/12/2019-Departmental Inquiry : It is settled law that interference with the orders passed pursuant to a departmental inquiry can be only in case of ‘no evidence’. Sufficiency of evidence is not within the realm of judicial review.
Station House Officer CBI/ACB/Bangalore vs. B.A. Srinivasan – 05/12/2019-Sanction u/s Section 197 CrPC when not required- From a perusal of the case law referred to supra, it becomes clear that for the purpose of obtaining previous sanction from the appropriate Government under Section 197 CrPC, it is imperative that the alleged offence is committed in discharge of official duty by the accused.
State of NCT of Delhi Vs Shiv Charan Bansal & Ors – 05/12/2019-Order of Discharge-Sections 120B, 302, 201 r.w. S.34 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act- In the present case, on account of the inconsistency in framing charges by the Sessions Court against the six accused, the trial has got truncated. The trial with respect to three accused i.e. Sachin Bansal, Narendra Mann, and the alleged contract killer – Joginder Singh Sodhi has proceeded in the absence of the other three accused viz. Shiv Charan Bansal, Lalit Mann and Shailendra Singh.
Mahipal Vs Rajesh Kumar @ Polia & Anr-05/12/2019-Cancellation of Bail -Where an order refusing or granting bail does not furnish the reasons that inform the decision, there is a presumption of the non-application of mind which may require the intervention of this Court. Where an earlier application for bail has been rejected, there is a higher burden on the appellate court to furnish specific reasons as to why bail should be granted.
STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. VS MANJU NAIK- 04/12/2019-Statutory Interpretation:a particular provision of the statute should be construed with reference to other provisions of the same statute so as to construe the enactment as a whole. It would also be necessary to avoid an interpretation which will involve conflict with two provisions of the same statute and effort should be made for harmonious construction. In other words, the provision of a Rule cannot be used to defeat another Rule unless it is impossible to effect reconciliation between them.
P.Chidambaram Vs Directorate of Enforcement – 4/12/2019-The instant appeal is allowed and the judgment dated 15.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Delhi in Bail Application No.2718 of 2019 impugned herein is set aside; The appellant is ordered to be released on bail if he is not required in any other case, subject to executing bail bonds for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs with two sureties of the like sum produced to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge; The passport ordered to be deposited by this Court in the CBI case shall remain in deposit and the appellant shall not leave the country without specific orders to be passed by the learned Special Judge. The appellant shall make himself available for interrogation in the course of further investigation as and when required by the respondent. The appellant shall not tamper with the evidence or attempt to intimidate or influence the witnesses;
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.
JAI PRAKASH VS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS-28/11/2019-Murder Conviction-Sections 302 IPC and 120-B IPC-The duty of the appellate court is to consider and appreciate the evidence adduced by the prosecution and arrive at an independent conclusion. Like the trial court, the appellate court also must be satisfied of its conclusion.
Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. v. HSCC (India) Ltd-26/11/2019-ARBITRATION-In exercise of the power conferred by Section 11(6) of the Act, we appoint Dr. Justice A.K. Sikri, former Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator to decide all the disputes arising out of the Agreement dated 22.05.2017, between the parties, subject to the mandatory declaration made under the amended Section 12 of the Act with respect to independence and impartiality and the ability to devote sufficient time to complete the arbitration within the period as per Section 29A of the Act.
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.
Manju Puri Vs. Rajiv Singh Hanspal & Ors-14/11/2019-Revocation of probate-even though learned Single Judge had discretion to issue citation or not but in the facts of the present case a citation ought to have been issued in exercise of discretion conferred under Section 283 of the Succession Act and the probate granted without issuance of such citation in the facts of the present case deserves to be revoked and learned Single Judge and the Division Bench committed error in rejecting the application for revocation filed by the appellant.
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.
Ravi S/o. Ashok Ghumare Vs. State of Maharashtra – 03/10/2019-MURDER- DEATH SENTENCE CONFIRMED-the victim was barely a two-year old baby whom the appellant kidnapped and apparently kept on assaulting over 4-5 hours till she breathed her last. The appellant who had no control over his carnal desires surpassed all natural, social and legal limits just to satiate his sexual hunger. He ruthlessly finished a life which was yet to bloom. The appellant instead of showing fatherly love, affection and protection to the child against the evils of the society, rather made her the victim of lust.
Union of India Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors-01/10/2019-Atrocities Act -There is no absolute bar against grant of anticipatory bail in cases under the Atrocities Act if no prima facie case is made out or where on judicial scrutiny the complaint is found to be prima facie mala fide. Arrest of a public servant can only be after approval of the appointing authority and of a nonpublic servant after approval by the S.S.P. To avoid false implication of an innocent, a preliminary enquiry may be conducted by the DSP.
K.H. Nazar Vs. Mathew K. Jacob & Ors -30/09/2019-Statutory Interpretation- Beneficial Legislation-Semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation of ‘bread and butter’ statutes. Welfare statutes must, of necessity, receive a broad interpretation. Where legislation is designed to give relief against certain kinds of mischief, the Court is not to make inroads by making etymological excursions
Indusind Media & Communications Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi-27/09/2019-CUSTOM-The basic principle of levy of customs duty, in view of the aforementioned provisions, is that the value of the imported goods has to be determined at the time and place of importation. The value to be determined for the imported goods would be the payment required to be made as a condition of sale. Assessment of customs duty must have a direct nexus with the value of goods which was payable at the time of importation.
Guru @ Gurubaran & Ors. Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police 27/09/2019-Section 302, Indian Penal Code -the accused can only be held guilty of having committed the offence under Section 324 IPC. He has already undergone imprisonment for around 11 years and, therefore, his conviction under Section 302 IPC is altered to Section 324 IPC and the sentence is reduced to the period of incarceration already undergone.
Md. Abrar Vs. Meghalaya Board of Wakf & ANR-26/09/2019-WAKF- in order to establish a claim of hereditary succession to mutawalliship, the intention of the waqif, as manifested either through the directions given in the waqf deed or the creation of a custom, is of paramount importance
Leeladhar (D) through LRS. Vs. Vijay Kumar (D) through LRS-26/09/2019-Specific performance of the contract-The agreement was an agreement to sell and after entering into the agreement to sell, Appellant received the full sale consideration and handed over the possession to Respondent, the question of exercising any discretionary favour to the appellant does not arise.
Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Bahamas Barbados Bolivia Brazil Costa Rica Chile Colombia Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Grenada Guyana Jamaica Mexico Panama Peru Suriname Trinidad and Tobago Uruguay Venezuela