FIRST LAW

DELHI HIGH COURT | Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Sections 7A and 7B - Determination of Moneys Due from Employers - Whether the provident fund commissioner who is the statutory authority, has exercised the powers vested in him to collect the relevant evidence before determining the payable amount -  Held, it was incumbent upon the petitioner while making an inquiry in accordance with Section 7A of the Act to take all possible steps as set out in the Act to make a correct and proper assessment of the dues. It needs no reiteration that while making such an inquiry, the Commissioner has ample powers not only to summon any witness but also has powers to enforce the attendance of any person or summon him on oath. In these circumstances, once the tribunal found that the petitioner, had not taken adequate steps to summon all the contractors, by enforcing their attendance and that too in a case where the petitioner had initiated proceed...

Government Premises (Eviction) Act, 1955 (Bombay) - S. 7 - Unauthorized Occupation of the Premises - the act of the Corporation in accepting charges from the petitioner would not result in automatic renewal of licence in favour of the petitioner. The charges were accepted by the ­Corporation towards unauthorized occupation of the premises in question by the petitioner. The licence could be said to have been renewed only, if an agreement had been executed in favour of the petitioner by the ­Corporation on terms that were agreeable to both the parties. The facts of the present case show that no such event occurred and there was no document on record to show that the licence of the petitioner was ever renewed. The findings rendered by the Court below regarding the possession of the petitioner being unauthorized are correct and therefore, it is found that there is no substance in the present Writ Petition.  Shri Shyam Ramapati Pandey v. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corpora...

1. Tulsi Ram @ Suresh v. State [Rajasthan High Court] Evidence Law - Last Seen Theory - Circumstantial Evidence - Principles to be followed - Criminal P.C. 1973 - S. 374 (2) - Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - In a case where the other links have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused, the circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation would provide an additional link which completes the chain. In the absence of proof of other circumstances, the only circumstance of last seen together and absence of satisfactory explanation cannot be made the basis of conviction.

1. Ganpat Prasad Mehta v. State of Bihar [Patna High Court] Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 173 - Irrespective of finding recorded by the Investigating Officer submitted before the court in accordance with Section 173 of the CrPC, the cognizance taking magistrate not at all is under compulsion to accept the same rather, the magistrate has got an option available (a) to accept the same, (b) to differ therefrom, (c) to direct further investigation.

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 ...

1. Lakhinder Gogoi v. State of Assam [Gauhati High Court] Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Sections 4 and 6 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 363, 366(A) and 376(2)(i) - the offence committed by the appellant-accused deserves severe punishment under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, which prescribes a minimum term of imprisonment for 10 years. However, in the present case in hand, as the learned trial court has sentenced the appellant-accused to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for further 6 months, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the sentence awarded to the accused as minimum sentence as prescribed under Section 6 of POCSO Act is found to be awarded. The aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor girl amounts to taking away the entire childhood of the minor and it is bound to have a permanent affect on her. Moreover, from the examination of the ac...

1. Pramod Kumar Rusia v. State [Chattisgarh High Court] Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - there is no evidence on record on the basis of which it could be inferred that the Appellant had made any demand for bribe or he had accepted any money from the Complainant as bribe - PW11 has stated that the Complainant had kept the money in the hand of the Appellant when he was sleeping and later on that money was seized from the hand of the Appellant. In the circumstance, on washing of the hands of the Appellant in a solution of sodium carbonate, turning of colour of that solution into pink is natural. Mere recovery of tainted money from the Appellant does not prove demand or acceptance of bribe money. Therefore, in my considered view, the offence alleged against the Appellant under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act of 1947 is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Fatima Nafees v. State Writ of Habeas Corpus - Student of M. Sc (Bio-Technology) at the Jawaharlal Nehru University - Special Investigation Team (SIT) - Court has monitored the investigation of the CBI up to the stage where the CBI is in a position to file a report before the concerned criminal Court. What should happen hereafter is for the concerned criminal Court to decide and not this Court. Consequently the prayer of the Petitioner that the Court should constitute an SIT and monitor its work, thus removing the CBI from the picture, has to be declined.

1. Suhaib Ilyasi v. State [Delhi High Court] Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 201, 302, 304B, 468, 471 and 498A - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 176 - Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - Inquiry by Magistrate into cause of death - Did the Appellant murder his wife or was it a case of suicide - Events immediately preceding the incident - Statement of the Appellant under Section 176 Cr.P.C. - Testimonies of other witnesses - Inquest proceedings conducted by the SDM - First post-mortem report - The SDM's Report - Investigation - Charge sheet - Second post mortem report - Deposition of PW-2, the brother of the deceased - Deposition of PW-5, the father of the deceased - Deposition of PW-6, The mother of the deceased - Deposition of PW-18, elder sister of the deceased - Deposition of PW-20, eldest sister of the deceased - Deposition of Investigating Offi...

1. Gautam Navlakha v. State (Nct of Delhi) House Arrest - Whether this Court should extend the house arrest of the Petitioner by two more days since the Supreme Court had itself extended his house arrest for four weeks - Held, the Supreme Court had extended the Petitioner‟s house arrest only in order to enable him to avail of the remedies that were permissible to him in accordance with law. As far as the present Petitioner is concerned, the fact that this writ petition filed by him was already pending before this Court, was noticed by the Supreme Court and it was made clear that he is free to pursue this remedy among others in accordance with law. The extension of his house arrest by the Supreme was only for that limited purpose. Consequently, this Court is unable to accede to the request. [Para 31] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Ss. 167 r/w. 57 & 41 (1) (ba) - Constitution of India - Arts. 22 (1) & (2) - Transit Remand - Non-compliances of the mandatory requirement...

1. Jodhpur Sanchita @ Shilpi v. State [Rajasthan High Court] Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 342, 354-A, 370(4), 376(2)(f), 376D, 506, 509/34, 109/120-B- Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Ss. 23 & 26 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Ss. 5(f), 5(g), 6, 7, 8 r/w. 17 - the prosecutrix, a 12 th Standard student - applicant-appellant, who was working as Warden of the hostel, where the prosecutrix was residing - convicting and sentencing the applicant-appellant for the offence punishable under Section 376D IPC, Sections 5(g)/6 and 17 of POCSO Act. 

1. Amrik Singh v. State [ Jammu & Kashmir High Court] Hire Purchase Agreement - if financer takes back motor vehicle due to default in payment of installment, no process could be issued against the financer u/s 395 IPC on the basis of exaggeration version of the complainant. Sardar Trilok Singh v. Satya Deo Tripathi, AIR 1979 SC 850  Referred

1. Rajeev Singhal v. East Delhi Municipal Corporation [ Delhi High Court] Electrocution - Compensation -  Once the factum of accident having occurred resulting into death of the child and the accident being a consequence of negligence are established the writ Court should have proceeded to assess the compensation and awarded it to the appellants instead of dismissing the writ petition. In fact, the inter se dispute on facts between the respondents cannot be a ground for dismissing the writ petition.

1. In Reference High Court of Chhattisgarh On Its Own Motion Matter Relates To Malti @ Priya @ Shani v. State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Raipur Chhattisgarh [Chattisgarh High Court] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 428 - Period of detention undergone by the accused to be set off against the sentence of imprisonment - Discussed.

1.  Mohd. Alam v. State [ Delhi High Court] Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - The nature of the injuries sustained by the deceased were grievous, sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The accused did not set up a defence that there was a sudden quarrel in which they too received injuries from the deceased. The appellants had clearly taken undue advantage of the situation that the deceased was returning late in the night alone in- what appears to be, a secluded place and had acted in a cruel, brutal and an unusual manner.

1.  M v. State [ Delhi High Court] Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Writ of Habeas Corpus - This writ petition seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus is by a German national who states that his wife, an Indian national, brought away their minor daughter to India from Dubai where they were residing without his knowledge and on an emergency travel document issued in favour of the child by the Consulate General of India (CGI) in Dubai. He prays for a direction to the Respondents to produce the child before the Court and hand her custody over to him. It is further prayed that Respondent No.2 and the child be allowed to return to Dubai, United Arab Emirates (UAE).

1. Ankit v. State [ Himachal Pradesh High Court] Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 489A, 489B, 489C, 489D, 120-B, 201 and 34 -  Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory Bail Application - What is custodial interrogation?

1. Connaught Plaza Restaurants v. Radhakrishna Foodland  [Delhi High Court] Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 - Section 9 - Interim Relief - A rbitration agreement was in existence till disputes arose and hence a petition under Section 9 of the Act, shall be maintainable. Sales of Goods Act, 1930 -  Section 46 - Unpaid seller's rights - Extent of the lien -  there is no impediment to grant the relief to the petitioner as agreement itself stipulate the respondent cannot exercise any lien over the products of the petitioner, the quantum of the outstanding being in dispute; the business of the petitioner depends upon these supplies and any lack of supplies shall immensely affect the business of the petitioner in terms of loss of customers, opportunity, business goodwill etc. 2. Ravi Kumar v. State of H.P. [Himachal Pradesh High Court] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 323, 147, 149, 504 and 382 -...

1.  State of West Bengal v. Dr. Naval Patel [ Calcutta High Court ] Contract Law - The notifications impugned are neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. Further, the learned Judge should not have created a new contract between the State and the students by allowing the students to pay the bond amount in five equal annual instalments with the rider that upon payment of the first instalment the respondent authorities will release the documents of the students, e.g., mark sheet, degree/diploma certificate etc.. It is not within the domain of the Court to novate a contract between the two litigating parties.

1. Ram Chandra Singh v. Rajaram Motor Accident Claims - Fake Driving Licence - If the owner was aware of the fact that the licence was fake and still permitted the driver to drive the vehicle, then the insurer would stand absolved. However, the mere fact that the driving licence is fake, per se, would not absolve the insurer.