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 […]
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.
BSES Yamuna Power Ltd. Vs Sh. Ghanshyam Chand Sharma & Anr-05/12/2019
Pension Denied: Even if the first respondent had served twenty years, under Rule 26 of the CCS Pension Rules his past service stands forfeited upon resignation. The first respondent is therefore not […]
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
Bail granted-Observed: While the learned Judge was empowered to look at the materials produced in a sealed cover to satisfy his judicial conscience, the learned Judge ought not to have recorded finding based […]
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.
P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Versus State of Kerala and Anr. – 29/11/2019
Whether the contents of the memory card/pendrive submitted to the Court alongwith the police report can be treated as “document” as such held-hold that the contents of the memory card/pen drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document.
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.
THE ASSAM PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS VS PRANJAL KUMAR SARMA & ORS 28/11/2019
Selection process-the norms existing on the date when the process of selection begins, will control the selection and the alteration to the norms would not affect the ongoing process unless the new Rules are to be given retrospective effect.
KARNATAKA STATE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD VS B. HEERA NAIK & ORS. ETC- 26/11/2019
Criminal-Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974- whether Commissioner of City Municipal Council and Chief Officers of City Municipal Council can be prosecuted under Section 48 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1974”).
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.
State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Killu @ Kailash and Ors- 19/11/2019
MURDER: Merely because the other three accused persons i.e. the present respondents had not used their weapons does not absolve them of the responsibility and vicarious liability on which the very idea […]
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) Vs. Abhilash Lal & Ors-15/11/2019
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION-if a statute requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, it should be done in that manner or not at all, articulated in Nazir Ahmad v. Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253, has found widespread acceptance.
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.
Yashwant Sinha & Ors. Vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director & ANR-14/11/2019
REVIEW: The common judgment in four Writ Petitions has generated three Review Petitions, a Contempt Petition and a Petition under Section 340 of The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and an application seeking correction.
