5 Important Indian High Court Cases Pronounced Today [Monday, 4th June 2018]

1. B. Sailesh Saxena v. Union of India, Andhra High Court

Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 14 & 19(1)(g) - Tender - Work Tender - Qualification - Manufacture, Supply and Laying of Power Cables in the Power Transmission and Distribution Industry - Qualification Requirement of Past Experience of Atleast 245 kms - Whether such eligibility criteria was arbitrary and in violation.

2. Vemula Prashanth Reddy v. Komati Reddy Venkat Reddy, Andhra High Court

Constitution of India, 1950 - Arts. 12, 19, 105, 143, 165, 168, 170, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178-187, 189, 194, 208, 211, 212, 226, 333 - Officers of the Legislature - Are the powers and privileges of the legislative assembly distinct from those of its members?

3. Klassic Wheels v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Calcutta High Court

Designs Act, 2000 - S.19 - Any document shared under non-disclosure agreement cannot constitute a prior publication with the meaning of Designs Act.

4. Naseer Ahmad Bhat v. State of J&K, Jammu & Kashmir High Court

J&K Public Safety Act, 1978 - S.8(a) - A citizen cannot be deprived of personal liberty, guaranteed to him/her by the Constitution and of which, he/she cannot be deprived except in due course of law and for the purposes sanctioned by law

5. Seimens v. Skims, Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1997 (J&K) - S.11(6) - Appointment of a sole Arbitrator - Parties are free to agree on the procedure for the appointment of an Arbitrator - If only there is any failure of that procedure, the aggrieved party can invoke sub-sections (4), (5) or (6) of Section 11, as the case may be.

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog