7 Important Indian Courts Cases Pronounced Today [Monday, 9th April 2018]

1. Atlanta Limited v. Union of India [Delhi High Court]

National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) - Clause 2.1.19 to the extent it states that a contractor or its associate "has been expelled or terminated by Ministry of Road Transport & Highways or it implementing agencies for breach by such Bidder including individual or any of its Joint Venture Member", does not apply to automatic and unilateral contractual termination of agreements; it can apply only and only in cases, where for good and justified reasons, NHAI terminates a contract, and proposes to apply the said condition (Clause 2.1.19) after granting hearing and opportunity to the concerned party.

2. State v. Karam Singh @ Karma [Chattisgarh High Court]

Scope of interference available with the High Court while considering the appeal against acquittal.

3. Bharatiya Janata Party v. State of West Bengal [Supreme Court of India]

Constitution of India - Article 32 - West Bengal Panchayat Elections Act, 2003 - Writ of Mandamus - Panchayat Elections - Nomination Papers through Email - Police Protection - call for Central Para-Military Forces - Held, in order to ensure fair and free election to the panchayats, the State Election Commission shall take appropriate steps to remove the apprehensions of the petitioner and/or intending candidates and they may not be deprived of their chance to contest the panchayat elections.

4. Akshaya Kumar Brahma v. Gayatrirani Brahma [Orissa High Court]

Whether without a finding on the question of legal necessity, the appellate court was justified in holding that the alienation made by the father-manager of a joint Hindu Family is binding on the interests of the other coparceners?

5. Kameshwar Singh v. State of Bihar [Supreme Court of India]

Evidence Law - Witnesses Behaviour - Running away from the site of occurrence - the reactions of these witnesses in running away from the site of occurrence appears to be a natural human reaction under the facts and circumstances of the case - Behaviour of the witnesses or their reactions would differ from situation to situation and individual to individual - Expecting uniformity in their reactions would be unrealistic, and no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the uniformity of the human reaction - The evidence of the three eyewitnesses cannot be faulted merely because they ran away.

6. Srimati Chitralekha Mohanty v. Chandramani Bewa [Orissa High Court]

Adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law - Mere possession of the suit land for long time is not suffice to hold that the plaintiff has perfected title by way of adverse possession, unless the classical requirements of adverse possession nec vi, nec clam, nec precario are pleaded and proved.

7. Asha Devi v. State Bank of India [Supreme Court of India]

Compassionate Appointment - Petitioner relies upon the decision in Canara Bank Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412, particularly paragraph 17 - ex gratia payment has not been taken by the petitioner under the Scheme of 4th August, 2005 (Page 30) - Exemption from filing O.T. granted - Delay condoned - Issue notice.

Whether Plaint can be Rejected only against one of the Defendant(s) [SC JUDGMENT]

The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 (d) – Rejection of Plaint - Relief of reject the plaint only against one of the defendant(s) – Held, Such a relief “cannot be entertained” in exercise of power under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC - the relief of rejection of plaint in exercise of powers under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC cannot be pursued only in respect of one of the defendant(s) - the plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all, in exercise of power Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of CPC - the plaint as presented must proceed as a whole or can be rejected as a whole but not in part.

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog