20 Important Indian Courts Cases Pronounced Today [Tuesday, 10th April 2018]

1. Baharan Ali v. State of Bihar [Patna High Court]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 167(2) - Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016 - Ss. 30, 36 & 41 - Procedure for launching Prosecution - Grant of Statutory Bail - Procedure when investigation cannot be completed in twenty-four hours.

See Also : Important Supreme Court of India Judgments Pronounced on 10th April 2018

2. Loon Singh v. State [Rajasthan High Court]

Service Law - Home Guard Regulations, 1964 - Regularization of service - not entitled for regularization of service in view of voluntary nature of their service - in absence of any comparison of duties, responsibilities, accountability and status, they shall not be equated with permanent employees to claim parity of pay with such employees - appeals are dismissed.

3. Praveen Pandey v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Advocates Act, 1961 - call for strike or boycott - the decision of the State Bar Council calling upon the Advocates in the State to observe a week-long protest and to abstain from all judicial works and Court proceedings is illegal, unconstitutional and against the statutory provisions as well as contrary to the judgments of the Supreme Court.

4. Current Advertising v. Cement Corporation of India [Delhi High Court]

Arbitration Act, 1940 - S. 14 - the Court/Arbitrator must endeavor to give judgment/award within reasonable time but the law has craved an exception for arbitration as its period may be enlarged by mutual consent. Hence once the respondent had given its consent for extension of time to give award it cannot plead otherwise.

5. State v. Rajendra Singh [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302, 427 & 336 - Murder - Appeal against Acquittal - Reappreciation / reappraisal of evidence is not required where there is no perversity in findings of the Courts below.

6. Shakti Mohan Lal Mallik v. Bank of India [Patna High Court]

Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 - Regulation 4(g) - Since the penalty of removal from service of the Bank has been passed in terms of Regulation, which only disqualifies for future employment, the Bank authorities must consider the prayer of the appellant for payment of his retiral and other benefits which has not been barred as a part of the order of punishment.

7. Bharatiya Janata Party v. State Election Commission [Calcutta High Court]

West Bengal Panchayat Elections Act, 2003 - S. 46(2) - Court permits the Commission to take steps in accordance with law by treating the operation of its order dated 10th April, 2018, to have been kept in abeyance.

8. Kavita Devi v. Neelam Rathor [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Motor Accidents Claims - driver was not having driving licence of transport vehicle - It is directed that Insurance Company along with the owner / driver are jointly and severally responsible to satisfy the claim.

9. Union of India v. Roman Tarmat [Jammu & Kashmir High Court] 

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (Jammu & Kashmir) - Ss. 34, 35, 37 - Application for setting aside arbitral award - Finality of arbitral awards - Appealable orders - Effect of pendency of appeal under Section 37 of the Act on the executability of the award.

10. Fankaar Interiors v. Doonvalley Technopolis [Delhi High Court]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 37 - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Ss. 5 & 8 - Summary Procedure - condonation of delay - under Order 37 CPC the leave to defend application need to be filed within 10 days and if not filed then the application under Order 37 Rule 7 CPC only would lie, Order 37 CPC being a complete Code - leave to defend application being highly belated is also dismissed - No cogent grounds for delay are shown, hence the delay condonation application is also dismissed.

11. Piyush Kaviya v. Public Service Commission [Rajasthan High Court]

Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 - The writ petitioners were negligent. They never disclosed in the on-line application forms submitted that they were non- gazetted Government employees. Thus, it was too late in the day for them to seek change in the category in which they had applied after the admit cards were issued by informing the Commission that they were non-gazetted Government employees.

12. Bhagwat Swaroop Sharma v. Bhagat Ram [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

M.P. Accommodation Control Act, 1961 - S. 12 (1) (f) - Eviction - bona fide need of the suit shop for his son to start the business of retail electrical items.

13. Gajendra @ Rahul v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Murder - Looking to the unimpeccable testimony of the eye-witnesses and the medical evidence, the Trial Court did not commit any error in holding that the deceased had died on account of causing injury by the appellant by a stone boulder on the person of the deceased, a boy of 2 ½ years old.

14. Salman Khan v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 376 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 482 - Quashment of FIR - On the pretext of marriage, applicant made sexual relations at several occassions at different places - refused to marry - the interference under Section 482 is not warranted.

15. Mohit Jain v. Sonali Jain [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Family Court Act, 1984 - S.19(4) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 125, 397, 482 - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Ss. 9, 24 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 498(A), 506/34 - Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 - Ss. 3/4 - the amount awarded under Section 125 of Cr.P.C for maintenance is adjustable against the amount awarded in matrimonial proceedings and is not to be given over and above the same.

16. Mahesh Khaitan v. Jayalakshmamma [Karnataka High Court]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. 39 R. 3 - Temporary Injunction and Interlocutory Order - not recorded any reasons for dispensing notice to the defendants in the suit - the impugned order is unsustainable in law.

17. Ashok Jain v. Ruchita Agnihotri [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. 18 R. 4 - Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 120 - Power of Attorney Act, 1982 - S. 1A - In a civil proceeding, the parties to the suit and the husband or wife of any party to the suit shall be a competent witness and for appearance on behalf of the husband or wife as the case may be, there is no need to execute the power of attorney.

18. Sheela Jatav v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Marriage - Major citizens are entitled to marry the person of their choice. Merely because they married each other, they cannot be subjected to any kind of harassment or victimization.

19. Aziz Khan v. Second Battalion S.A.F. [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Constitution of India - Art. 227 - Merely because another view is possible in the given facts and circumstances, High Court cannot interfere in the limited supervisory jurisdiction.

20. Lalita Khanna Vs. Vinod Kumar [Himachal Pradesh High Court]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. 2 R. 2 - the principles to make this rule applicable, the defendant is required to satisfy the following three conditions:- (a) The previous and second suit must arise out of the same cause of action; (b) Both the suits must be between the same parties and; (c) The earlier suit must have been decided on merits - In order to make the provisions of Order 2 Rule 2 applicable, it is not necessary that the first suit should have been disposed of at the time when the second suit is filed.