3 Important Supreme Court Judgments July 11, 2019

1. Sheoli Hati v. Somnath Das

Custody of Child - What is in the interest of the child depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and has to be decided on its own merits without adhering to any fixed formula or rule.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5388 - 5389 of 2019 11-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Mr. Nikilesh Ramachandran, AOR

Respondent's Advocate : Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv. Mr. S. Vinay Ratnakar, Adv. Mr. Nawab Singh, Adv.

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

2. Chief Regional Manager United India Insurance Company Limited v. Siraj Uddin Khan

Nobody could be directed to claim wages for the period that he remained absent without leave or without justification.

Case Number : C.A. No. 5390 of 2019 11-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Mohit Paul

Respondent's Advocate : Respondent-in-person

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Sinha

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan

3. The All Manipur Pensioners Assn. Regd.no.1315/1973 Under The Societies Registration Act By Its Secre v. The State of Manipur

The State cannot arbitrarily pick and choose from amongst similarly situated persons, a cutoff date for extension of benefits especially pensionary benefits.

Case Number : C.A. No. 10857 of 2016 11-07-2019

Petitioner's Advocate : Ananga Bhattacharyya

Respondent's Advocate : Ashutosh Dubey

Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna

Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah

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