1. Union of India v. Dimple Happy Dhakad
The Customs Act, 1962 - Section 135 - The Conservation of Foreign Exchange & Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA) - Section 3 - Detaining Authority - Power to make orders detaining certain persons - Validity of subjective satisfaction can be tested - The court must be conscious that the satisfaction of the detaining authority is “subjective” in nature and the court cannot substitute its opinion for the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and interfere with the order of detention. It does not mean that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is immune from judicial reviewability.
In the present case, huge volume of gold had been smuggled into the country unabatedly for the last three years and about 3396 kgs of the gold has been brought into India during the period from July 2018 to March, 2019 camouflaging it with brass metal scrap. The detaining authority recorded finding that this has serious impact on the economy of the nation. Detaining authority also satisfied that the detenues have propensity to indulge in the same act of smuggling and passed the order of preventive detention, which is a preventive measure. Based on the documents and the materials placed before the detaining authority and considering the individual role of the detenues, the detaining authority satisfied itself as to the detenues’ continued propensity and their inclination to indulge in acts of smuggling in a planned manner to the detriment of the economic security of the country that there is a need to prevent the detenues from smuggling goods. The High Court erred in interfering with the satisfaction of the detaining authority and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. [Para 43]
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1064 of 2019 18-07-2019
In the present case, huge volume of gold had been smuggled into the country unabatedly for the last three years and about 3396 kgs of the gold has been brought into India during the period from July 2018 to March, 2019 camouflaging it with brass metal scrap. The detaining authority recorded finding that this has serious impact on the economy of the nation. Detaining authority also satisfied that the detenues have propensity to indulge in the same act of smuggling and passed the order of preventive detention, which is a preventive measure. Based on the documents and the materials placed before the detaining authority and considering the individual role of the detenues, the detaining authority satisfied itself as to the detenues’ continued propensity and their inclination to indulge in acts of smuggling in a planned manner to the detriment of the economic security of the country that there is a need to prevent the detenues from smuggling goods. The High Court erred in interfering with the satisfaction of the detaining authority and the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. [Para 43]
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1064 of 2019 18-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : B. Krishna Prasad
Bench : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Bopanna
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mrs. Justice R. Banumathi
2. State of Bihar v. Dilip Kumar
The Bihar Municipal Body Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 - Rules 3, 8, 9, 10 and 20 - Employment on the post of Nagar Shikshak - Category of Town Elementary Teachers - Conditions of Eligibility - Appointment on Compassionate Ground.
The High Court was manifestly in error in directing the Government of Bihar to appoint the respondents in its regular service despite the fact that their appointments were made after the 2006 Rules were brought into force.
Case Number : C.A. No. 5205 of 2019 18-07-2019
The High Court was manifestly in error in directing the Government of Bihar to appoint the respondents in its regular service despite the fact that their appointments were made after the 2006 Rules were brought into force.
Case Number : C.A. No. 5205 of 2019 18-07-2019
Bench : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Hon'ble Ms. Justice Indira Banerjee
Judgment By : Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
3. Wasim v. State Nct of Delhi
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A / 304B - Without any discussion of the evidence pertaining to demand of dowry and without dealing with the findings recorded by the Trial Court regarding the demand of dowry, the High Court held that the offence under Section 498A was made out - The High Court ought not to have convicted the Appellant under Section 498A for demand of dowry without a detailed discussion of the evidence on record, especially when the Trial Court found that there is no material on record to show that there was any demand of dowry. The High Court did not refer to such findings of the Trial Court and record reasons for its disapproval. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1061 of 2019 18-07-2019
Case Number : Crl.A. No. 1061 of 2019 18-07-2019
Petitioner's Advocate : Kanhaiya Singhal
Bench : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
Judgment By : Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao
Comments
Post a Comment