1. Abhay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar [Patna High Court]
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Sections 2 (a), 2 (f), 3, 19 and 20 - Petitioner, who is the father-in-law of opposite party no. 2 - the opposite party no. 2 lived in the house in question for a brief while; nonetheless she is entitled to at least one room in the aforesaid house - In the absence of any unanimity of opinion about opposite party no. 2 accepting money in lieu of her right to reside in the aforesaid house in one room, she cannot be forced to accept the offer of the petitioner in that regard. Apart from her non-acceptance of the offer upfront, this Court is also of the view that since the opposite party no. 2 is a widow who has to look after a young school going child, it would only be safe for her to stay in the same household; especially when it is a three storied house and there are many tenants in that house. The courts below have not subscribed to any unreasonable view. As far as the monetary relief is concerned, an amount of Rs. 5000/- appears to be absolutely reasonable.
Judgment : https://bit.ly/CrlR1089of2017
Coram: Ashutosh Kumar, J.
2. State of Nct of Delhi v. Sumit Kumar [Delhi High Court]
Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - The accused has not been able to explain why the prosecutrix and her family members would falsely implicate him in such a serious offence. The accused was known to the family of the prosecutrix- being a neighbor. In that capacity, he appears to have known of the parents of the prosecutrix being out of town, thereby leaving the minor children unprotected. It appears he was also aware of the fact that PW2 Rahul- the elder brother, was away to participate in Budh Bazar and the prosecutrix was home only with her younger sibling. He seized the opportunity and committed the heinous crime.Judgment : View / Download
Case Number : Crl. A. No. 223 of 2018
Coram: Vipin Sanghi and I.S. Mehta, JJ.
3. Social Jurist, A Civil Rights Group v. Government of Nct of Delhi [Delhi High Court]
Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 21 - Patients who do not hold a valid Voter ID Card of Delhi are being categorised as non-Delhi patients, and thereby denied certain facilities for treatment in a Government hospital - Excluding non-Delhi patients from availing the benefit of free treatment or certain medical facilities in the hospital - Held, the act of the Government in creating a class within a class i.e. within citizens identically situated is impermissible and thereby further act of conferring benefit of medical facility to citizens on such classification is impermissible.Judgment : View / Download
Case Number : W.P. (C) No. 10585 of 2018 & C.M. Appl. 41279 of 2018
Coram: Rajendra Menon C.J. and V. Kameswar Rao, J.
4. Virender v. State [Delhi High Court]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 161 - The accused have sought to cast a doubt on the testimony of PW6 by urging that he was interrogated and his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded after about 7 months of the incident. Thus, it is claimed, he has been planted as a witness by the prosecution. Held, Just because the statement of PW6 u/s 161 Cr.P.C was recorded after 7 months of registration of FIR is no ground to disbelieve his testimony in court.Judgment : View / Download
Case Number : Crl. A. No. 1494 of 2014
Coram: Vipin Sanghi and I.S. Mehta, JJ.
5. A Suo Moto Taken Writ Petition v. State [Chattisgarh High Court]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 36 - Whether applications for execution of Arbitration Awards and other applications under that Act which could lie before the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction can be considered by any of the District Judges or Additional District Judges of that Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction ? Held, The word 'Court' defined u/S 2(1)(e) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 would include the Court of Additional District judge, therefore, the application u/S 34 or 36 of the Act, 1996 can be decided by the Additional District Judge(s) upon being made over by the District Judge.The word 'Court' defined in 2 (1) (e) not only includes the Principal Civil Court of Original Jurisdiction i.e. Court of Principal District Judge or District Judge(s), but also includes the Court of Additional District Judge(s), therefore, any application filed under any provision of the Act, 1996 before the Court after passing of the award, including applications under Section 34 or 36 of the Act, 1996, can be heard and decided not only by the District Judge(s), but also by the Court of Additional District Judge(s), upon being made over by the District Judge by a general or special order. In respect of application with regard to an arbitration agreement where the award is yet to be passed, such application may be moved before the District Judge and can be made over to the Court of Additional District Judge by general or special order but in such eventuality any subsequent application till passing of award is to be decided by the same Court, which has dealt with the earlier application, by virtue of Section 42 of the Act, 1996. The reference is answered accordingly.
Judgment : View / Download
Case Number : W.P. 227 No. 299 of 2018
Full Bench: Prashant Kumar Mishra, J; Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. & Ram Prasanna Sharma, J.
6. Punjab Produce & Trading Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Pilani Investment & Industries Corp. Ltd. [Calcutta High Court]
Company Law - In order to be elevated to the claim of derivative action, a mis-management and/or oppression of a higher plane ought to have been exhibited by the plaintiff. In the present case, the prayers sought in the interlocutory application are in apprehension of a particular way in which the shareholders of defendant no. 1 company might vote, which would, in turn, allegedly affect the interest of the defendant no. 1 company. Such cause of action, even if existent, would in the opinion of the Court be far too remote to entitle the plaintiff to get an injunction as sought for, more so in the nature of a derivative claim.Case Number : G.A. No. 2966 of 2018 with C.S. No. 114 of 2017
Bench: Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.
7. Subair v. Union of India [Madras High Court]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Whether Aruval is a Deadly Weapon Used in the commission of offence - the use of the aruval, a day-to-day tool, be termed as a deadly weapon - the purpose for which the aruval has been used clearly signifies that the weapon has been used for causing a deadly assault, not only on the person, but also to create a panic-like situation in and around the vicinity of the place where the occurrence took place and, therefore, the weapon should stand categorized as a deadly weapon. However, the size and the design of the weapon are incidental to hold it as a deadly weapon, which could be done only after full-fledged trial. 50. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the weapon alleged to have been used in the commission of the offence, viz., aruval, could not be termed as a deadly weapon, does not merit acceptance at this point of time.Judgment : View / Download
Case Number : Crl. A. No. 363 of 2018
Bench: Dr. Justice S. Vimala & S. Ramathilagam, JJ.
8. Padmavathi v. Secretary To Government [Madras High Court]
Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 2008 (Puducherry) - Section 3(2) - this case is yet another instance where this Court is reluctantly compelled to set free from detention a person believed to be a threat to the society, and allowed to go scot-free for want of due care, promptness and attention on the part of the State Government. This Court is left with no choice but to strike down the detention of the petitioner. If only the State Government had properly applied its mind to the correct legal position as laid down by various decisions of this Court and the Apex Court and shown greater concern and anxiety while exercising the power of preventive detention, the infirmity vitiating the detention of the petitioner could have been easily avoided. We hope and trust that the State Government will be more careful in the future so that persons who disrupt the peace and tranquility of the community are effectively prevented from carrying on with their nefarious activities.Judgment : View / Download
Case Number : H.C.P. No. 386 of 2018
Bench: Dr. S. Vimala & S. Ramathilagam, JJ.
9. Univabs Sleepers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [Chattisgarh High Court]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 34 - the Court cannot correct errors of the Arbitrators, it can only quash the award leaving the parties free to begin the arbitration again if it is desired. The parties have to be left to work out their remedy before the Arbitrator.Judgment : View / Download
Case Number : ARBA No. 43 of 2017
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava & Rajani Dubey, JJ.
10. Kartar Singh v. State [Chattisgarh High Court]
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Special Area Development Authority (Chairman and Officers and Servants Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1976 (Madhya Pradesh) - Sanction - A Revenue Inspector under the Rules of 1976 is an employee of the Special Area Development Authority (SADA) and his appointing authority is the Chairman of the SADA. It is also clear that the State Government has no control over the employees of the SADA. Even in the case of disciplinary authority under Rule 53 of the Rules of 1976, the State is appellate authority only for Class-I and Class-II officers. While for Class-III and Class-IV employees, the appellate authority is only the Chairman of the SADA. Thus, it is clear that in the instant case, the State Government is neither the controlling authority nor is the appointing authority and nor is the disciplinary authority in respect of the Appellant. Therefore, in the instant case, the sanction for prosecution (Ex.P4) accorded by the State Government is not a valid sanction.Judgment : View / Download
Case Number : Criminal Appeal No.964 of 1999
Bench: Arvind Singh Chandel, J.
11. Sugrabi Gulam Shaikh v. A.S. D'Silva [Bombay High Court]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - It is the duty of the court to do substantial justice to the parties but, it must be within the four corners of law and the court cannot grant substantial justice unless the parties and its advocates take necessary precautions regarding pleadings and evidence.Judgment : View / Download
Case Number : S.A. No. 963 of 2007
Bench: A.M. Dhavale, J.
12. Abidbhai v. Mohammed Ejaz [Bombay High Court]
Pleadings - Possession - In pleadings, whenever a person claims right to continue in possession of another property, it becomes necessary for him to plead with specificity about who was the owner, on what date did he enter into possession, in what capacity and in what manner did he conduct his relationship with the owner over the years till the date of suit. He must also give details on what basis he is claiming a right to continue in possession. Until the pleadings raise a sufficient case, they will not constitute sufficient claim of defence.Judgment : View / Download
Case Number : Writ Petitioner No. 4186 of 2014
Bench: S.B. Shukre, J.
13. Robert Lakra v. Union of India [Calcutta High Court]
Border Security Force Act, 1968 - Section 40 - The charge was "in connivance with civilian improperly helped smugglers to smuggle cattle through IBBF gate - Members of the Force are expected to possess utmost integrity, honesty, sincerity and be faithful to the motherland. Persons who do not bother to protect the interest, safety and security of their own nation and connive and indulge in illegal activities across the border in lieu of money are just not fit to remain as members of the Border Security Force. The country and the countrymen will certainly not be safe in their hands. Persons who compromise with the security of their own country does not deserve any leniency and are ought to be dealt with severely so that the same may have a deterring effect. Showing mercy and/or sympathy in such a case will amount to giving premium to such crimes which should not be tolerated under any circumstances.Judgment : View / Download
Case Number : W.P. No. 18505 of 2011
Bench: Amrita Sinha, J.
14. Devesh Kumar Dwivedi v. High Court [Allahabad High Court]
Voluntary Retirement - When the appointing authority can grant permission to withdraw an application seeking voluntary retirement - difference between an act of resignation and a notice of voluntary retirement - a Government servant is entitled to seek voluntary retirement at any time after attaining the age of 45 years or after he has completed qualifying service of 20 years. As there is no dispute that the petitioner had attained the age of 45 years on the date of giving notice, the notice was not void and was rightly acted upon.Judgment : View / Download
Case Number : W.A No. 40386 of 2016
Bench: Manoj Misra & Ved Prakash Vaish, JJ.
Comments
Post a Comment