Important Case Laws Pronounced Today [Thursday, 28 June 2018]

1. Farooq Ahmad Dar v. State [Jammu & Kashmir High Court, u/s 561-A No.176 of 2017]

No official can be booked for the commission of criminal misconduct on the allegation of any illegality committed in absence of any concrete material showing the deal of bribe or embezzlement.

2. Surendra Pratap Singh v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court, R.P. No. 638 of 2017]

Simple self-serving statement that the petitioners are social workers is not sufficient to invoke the public interest writ jurisdiction of this Court unless the petitioners are able to produce on record to the satisfaction of the Court such social work in last couple of years is in the area in respect of which the public interest writ petition is filed.

3. Hari Prasad Budhia v. State [Chattisgarh High Court, W.P.(C) No. 1196 of 2015]

Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 - Ss. 299A & 308A - Municipal Commissioner has no authority to revise the purpose of construction, order permitting the construction at the stage of completion of such construction - The best course would have been to refer the matter to State Government with request to invoke the powers u/s. 299-A of the Act, 1956, on account of non- fulfillment of requirement of the scheme of Town and Country Planning Department - Secondly, without working out whether the construction has exceeded Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the order passed about demolishing the so called excess construction is also not in accordance with the provisions u/s. 308A, Part (b) of the Act, 1956.

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