3 Important Supreme Court Cases Pronounced Today [Thursday, October 25, 2018]

1. Dalip Singh v. State of Haryana

Land Law - The court can interfere with the revocation of resumption of land only if the executive has not carried out its duty or acted in violation of the procedure.

Case Number : C.A. No. 10718 of 2018 25-10-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : Kaveeta Wadia

Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi

2. Jitendra @ Kalla v. State of Govt of Nct of Delhi

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - For the offence of murder, minimum sentence is ‘life imprisonment’. For that reason, obviously, the High Court could not have modified the sentence to the one already undergone. Therefore, modification in the aforesaid manner as done by the High Court was clearly erroneous.

Case Number : Crl.A. No. 2133 of 2017 25-10-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : Divya Roy

Respondent's Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri

3. Gopal Jha v. The Honble Supreme Court of India

Supreme Court Lawyers’ Chambers (Allotment and Occupancy) Rules - Rule 3 - Change of block period - Membership of Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA) - Resident of an advocate in Delhi - It is time to reconsider as to whether requirement of residence in Delhi or New Delhi in Rule 3 of the Allotment Rules needs to be retained or it should be extended to some areas of neighbouring States which are quite close to the vicinity of the Supreme Court. May be, by fixing a particular radial distance from the Supreme Court, the problem can be tackled. As it would require consideration on so many aspects, this issue can be considered by the Judges' Allotment Committee. It is for the Committee to take a final view on this issue, after taking into consideration all the relevant factors.

Case Number : W. P. (C) No. 745 of 2018 25-10-2018

Petitioner's Advocate : Petitioner-in-person

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri

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