FIRST LAW

Supreme Court Quadrimestre Digest Jan-Apr  2018  Anticipatory Bail - Whether should be for a limited period of time - Referred to Larger Bench. Sushila Aggarwal v. State (Nct of Delhi), 2018 (103) AllCC 995 : 2018 (3) Bom.C.R.(Cri.) 240 : JT 2018 (5) SC 137 : 2018 (7) Scale 549 S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 7281 of 2017 15-05-2018

All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969 - Rr. 6 & 8 - Procedure for imposing major penalties - A major penalty cannot be imposed except after holding an enquiry- disciplinary authority shall “draw up or caused to be drawn up” the substance of the imputation of misconduct or misbehavior into definite and distinct article of charge - an opportunity to be given to the delinquent to submit his explanation- the authority to institute proceedings and to impose penalty on a member of All India Service is the State Government, if he is serving in connection with the affairs of the State. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by Secretary to Govt. (Home) v. Promod Kumar IPS, AIR 2018 SC 4060 : 2018 (10) Scale 157 C.A. No. 8427 of 2018 21-08-2018 Arbitration - the impugned order is not a reasoned order and the grounds on which the objection of the appellant was allowed by the SubJudge who declined to make the Award Rule of the Court, was not considered by the High Court - the matter is r...

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - S.166 - deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question - accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the deceased - No other vehicle was involved in the accident - deceased himself was responsible for the accident - deceased being the owner of the offending vehicle was not a third party within the meaning of the Act - deceased was the victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving - A Claimant cannot maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or negligence and argue that even when he himself may have caused the accident on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can nevertheless make the insurance company to pay for the same - respondents being the LRs of the deceased could not have maintained the claim petition.

Supreme Court Monthly Digest Jan 2018 Supreme Court Monthly Digest Feb 2018 Supreme Court Monthly Digest Mar 2018 Supreme Court Monthly Digest Apr 2018 Supreme Court Monthly Digest May 2018 Supreme Court Monthly Digest Jun 2018 Supreme Court Monthly Digest Jul 2018 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988  - S.166 - deceased was the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question -accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the deceased - No other vehicle was involved in the accident - deceased himself was responsible for the accident - deceased being the owner of the offending vehicle was not a third party within the meaning of the Act - deceased was the victim of his own action of rash and negligent driving - A Claimant cannot maintain a claim on the basis of his own fault or negligence and argue that even when he himself may have caused the accident on account of his own rash and negligent driving, he can nevertheless make the insurance company to pay f...

Criminal Law - Rape Victims - Acid Attack – Conviction ; Suresh Chandra Jana v. State of West Bengal, JT 2017 (8) SC 119 : 2017 (8) Scale 697

Criminal Law - Dangerous Weapon - Kitchen Knife & Sil Batta - Merely because the kitchen knife and Sil Batta are readily available in most homes does not make them any less dangerous. A kitchen knife used on the vital parts of a person's body can cause serious damage, like in the instant case where there are serious grievous incised wounds on the neck of the victim, and this itself is a clear demonstration of how dangerous a weapon a kitchen knife really is.

Penal Code, 1860 - S.376 - Rape - Age of the Victim - School Register - In each and every case the prosecution cannot be expected to examine the person who has admitted a student in the school. The school registers are the authentic documents being maintained in the official course, entitled to credence of much weight unless proved otherwise. 

Evidence Law -  Question of Identification by Voice -  Identification from the voice of the accused may be possible if there is evidence to show that the witness was sufficiently acquainted with the accused in order to recognize him or her by voice.

Evidence Law - testimony of a witness cannot be discarded in toto merely due to the presence of embellishments or exaggerations. The doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means “false in one thing, false in everything” has been held to be inapplicable in the Indian scenario, where the tendency to exaggerate is common.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - S.15 - Interpretation of - Divorced persons when may marry again - Principles of Purposive Construction - the restriction placed on a second marriage in Section 15 of the Act till the dismissal of an appeal would not apply to a case where parties have settled and decided not to pursue the appeal.

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 498 A, 120 B, 420 & 365 - Courts should be careful in proceeding against the distant relatives in crimes pertaining to matrimonial disputes and dowry deaths - Relatives of the husband should not be roped in on the basis of omnibus allegations unless specific instances of their involvement in the crime are made out.

1. Shailesh Manubhai Parmar v. Election Commission of India through the Chief Election Commissioner  Election - Applicability of NOTA to the Rajya Sabha elections - Option of NOTA may serve as an elixir in direct elections but in respect of the election to the Council of States which is a different one as discussed above, it would not only undermine the purity of democracy but also serve the Satan of defection and corruption. 33 28. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the writ petition is allowed and the circulars issued by the Election Commission, the first respondent herein, introducing NOTA in respect of elections to the Council of States are hereby quashed.  Case Number : W. P. (C) No. 631 of 2017 21-08-2018; Petitioner's Advocate : Farrukh Rasheed; Bench : Hon'ble The Chief Justice, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A. M. Khanwilkar, Hon'ble Dr. Justice D. Y. Chandrachud; Judgment By : Hon'ble The Chief Justice  2. M/s. Sonell Clocks and Gifts Ltd. v. Th...