CASE LAW DIGEST - DECEMBER , 2014
- State Bar Council has no competency to decide on election dispute of office bearers of any of the District Bar Associations or Local Bar Association. Only an ordinary Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue of validity of election. - says Punjab and Haryana High Court (Tahir Hussain Ruparya v. Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, through its Secretary, Law Bhawan Writ Petition No.14449 of 2014...Judgment Dated : 03/12/2014
- Lawyers who join legal field in search of greener pasture in the evening of their lives cannot and should not be equated with those who have devoted their whole lives to the profession. - Says Supreme Court
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11454-11459 OF 2014
Judgment Dated : 16/12/2014
CORAM : M.Y. Eqbal .J, R. Banumathi .J
ISSUE INVOLVED :
Whether there is intelligible differentia between the classification of advocates who had set up practice straight after enrolment and other advocates who start their practice after demitting the office and are in receipt of pension and other benefits?
Whether there is intelligible differentia between the classification of advocates who had set up practice straight after enrolment and other advocates who start their practice after demitting the office and are in receipt of pension and other benefits?
- The liberty of an individual is not absolute. Hence,The society by its collective wisdom through process of law can withdraw the liberty that it has sanctioned to an individual when an individual becomes a danger to the collective and to the societal order. – Says Supreme Court
Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P and Anr.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2587 OF 2014
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2587 OF 2014
Judgment Dated : 16/12/2014
CORAM : DIPAK MISRA .J , UDAY UMESH LALIT .J
CATCHPHRASE :
1. An Unique Jurisprudence on "LIBERTY" can be traced in Para 16 of the judgment.
1. An Unique Jurisprudence on "LIBERTY" can be traced in Para 16 of the judgment.
- The Supreme Court today issued directions to the Union of India and the State of Assam to ensure that effective steps shall be taken to prevent illegal access to the country from Bangladesh; to detect foreigners belonging to the stream of 1.1.1966 to 24.3.1971 so as to give effect to the provisions of Section 6(3) & (4) of the Citizenship Act and to detect and deport all illegal migrants who have come to the State of Assam after 25.3.1971.
Assam Sanmilita Mahasangha & Ors. v. Union of India
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 562 OF 2012
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 562 OF 2012
Judgment Dated : 17/12/2014
CORAM : Ranjan Gogoi .J, R.F. Nariman .J
CATCHPHRASE :
1. Sec. 6-A of the Citizenship Act stand valid till the time it is referred to the larger bench.
2. There is no lower as well as upper limit under the limitation act for filing writ petition under Art.32 of the Indian Constitution.
- "The policy with regard to reservation in the matter of promotion to the employees is not legal and proper." - SC
South Central Railway Employees Co-Op. Credit Society Employees
Union v. B. Yashodabai and others
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7130 OF 2002
Union v. B. Yashodabai and others
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7130 OF 2002
Judgment Dated : 08/12/2014
CORAM : ANIL R. DAVE .J, MADAN B. LOKUR .J, KURIAN JOSEPH .J
ISSUE INVOLED :
Whether the policy of reservation was to be followed only at the stage of recruitment of the employees or it was also to be followed in the matter of giving promotion to the higher cadre.
Supreme Court cautioned the High Court and Subordinate court stating that :
1. Once this Court decides an issue by taking a particular decision, it
cannot be said that the judgment delivered by this Court is per incuriam or this Court had not considered all relevant factors while delivering the said judgment.
1. Once this Court decides an issue by taking a particular decision, it
cannot be said that the judgment delivered by this Court is per incuriam or this Court had not considered all relevant factors while delivering the said judgment.
2. When a higher court has rendered a particular decision, the said decision must be followed by a subordinate or lower court unless it is distinguished or overruled or set aside.
3.By not following the law laid down by this Court, the High Court or the Subordinate Courts would also be violating the provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution of India.
Reliance placed upon : Government of Goa v. A.H. Jaffar and sons and anr. 2008(11) SCC 18
- " Even if witness turns hostile during cross-examination, his Examination-in-chief cannot be outrightly discarded." - SC
Selvaraj @ Chinnapaiyan v. State represented by Inspector of Police
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 892 OF 2009
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 892 OF 2009
Judgment Dated : 09/12/2014
CORAM: Vikramajit Sen .J, Prafulla C. Pant .J
CONCLUSION:
1.If the court finds from the two different statements made by the same accused, only one of the two is believable, and what has been stated in the cross-examination is false, even if the witnesses have turned hostile, the conviction can be recorded believing the testimony given by such witnesses in the examination-in -chief. However, such evidence is required to be examined with great caution.
1.If the court finds from the two different statements made by the same accused, only one of the two is believable, and what has been stated in the cross-examination is false, even if the witnesses have turned hostile, the conviction can be recorded believing the testimony given by such witnesses in the examination-in -chief. However, such evidence is required to be examined with great caution.
- The Supreme Court of India lifted ban on hookah smoking at the smoking places.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10836 OF 2014
Judgment Dated : 08/12/2014
CORAM : Ranjan Gogoi .J , Rohinton Fali Nariman .J
CATCHPHRASE :
1. The definition of “smoking” contained in Section 3(n) of the Cigarettes Act A perusal of this definition shows that it includes smoking of tobacco in any form with the aid of a pipe, wrapper, or any other instrument, which
would obviously include a Hookah.
2.That being the case, “smoking” with a Hookah would be permissible under Rule 4(3) and the expression “no other service shall be allowed” obviously refers to services other than the providing of a Hookah.
1. The definition of “smoking” contained in Section 3(n) of the Cigarettes Act A perusal of this definition shows that it includes smoking of tobacco in any form with the aid of a pipe, wrapper, or any other instrument, which
would obviously include a Hookah.
2.That being the case, “smoking” with a Hookah would be permissible under Rule 4(3) and the expression “no other service shall be allowed” obviously refers to services other than the providing of a Hookah.
- FIR should contain the essential features of the prosecution case but it cannot be expected to be an encyclopedia of whole prosecution case. - reiterated Supreme Court
Kanchanben Purshottambhai Bhanderi v. State of Gujarat
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1152 OF 2009
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1152 OF 2009
Judgment Dated : 05/12/2014
CORAM : M.Y. EQBAL .J, SHIVA KIRTI SINGH .J
Brief Facts of the Case:
Matter of Suicidal death(Committed suicide by taking poison) - The Accused is Mother-in-Law of the deceased - Charged under Sec.304-B and Sec.498-A IPC
Allegation on Mother -in-Law is basically on two grounds:
1. Mother-in-law had asked the deceased in the name of Nilesh
to bring a big box type cot, room furniture, juicer mixer, gifts and cash amount received in marriage from her parents otherwise Nilesh would divorce her.
to bring a big box type cot, room furniture, juicer mixer, gifts and cash amount received in marriage from her parents otherwise Nilesh would divorce her.
2.When Hina told her mother in law that if such talk takes place she will commit suicide, the mother-in-law replied that her son will be relieved if she commits suicide.
- CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION may issue directions for maintenance of records for ready access of information by virtue of Sec.19(8)(a)(iv) of the RTI Act,2005. - Delhi High Court
THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA v. COMMODORE LOKESH K.BATRA AND ORS.
W.P.(C) 6634/2011
W.P.(C) 6634/2011
Judgment Dated : 04/12/2014
CORAM : VIBHU BAKHRU .J
Brief Facts of the Case :
The Respondent has sought information about the pendency of cases and also the list of reserved cases in the specified manner. The CPIO of Supreme Court rejected the application and stated that all the information are available under the Supreme Court Rules, 1966 and the Supreme Court of India, Practice & Procedure ‘A Handbook of Information’.
CATCHPHRASE :
1.CIC as a guardian of the Act would ensure the proper implementation of the Act and can pass a direction to achieve the object of the Act.
2.Information regarding the functioning of public institutions is a fundamental right enshrined under Article 19 of the Constitution of India
- The Supreme Court was hearing the writ petition on 4/12/2014 in which Petitioner contended that it is the responsibility of Google India, Yahoo India and Microsoft Corporation (I) Pvt. Ltd. to filter out/block the violated information and sponsored links.
In pursuance to this, a very reasonable ( at the same time evasive..smile emoticon ) contention was put forth by the respondent :
Reasonable Contention : The service provider/search engines only provide the carriage, technology for indexing information. The content information is provided by others. Wherever the service provider is providing only the carriage and transmission mechanism and not the contents/information, it is necessary that the distinction needs to be made between a service provider and a content provider.
SABU MATHEW GEORGE v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Writ Petition (Civil) No.341 of 2008
Writ Petition (Civil) No.341 of 2008
Date of Hearing : 04/12/2014
CORAM : JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA .J, UDAY UMESH LALIT .J
CATCHPHRASE:
1. Concept of Organic Search Result and Sponsered Links was explained in the order.
- The assurance to form promissory estoppel must come from the person in authority having competence to extend it.- Says Supreme Court
PASCHIMANCHAL VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. v. M/S ADARSH TEXTILES & ANR.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10707 OF 2014
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10707 OF 2014
Judgment Dated : 03/12/2014
CORAM : Jagdish Singh Khehar .J, Arun Mishra .J
CONCLUSION:
1.The Commission and the Corporation under the Electricity Act 2003 had no jurisdiction in the matter of subsidy which is the domain of the State Government.
1.The Commission and the Corporation under the Electricity Act 2003 had no jurisdiction in the matter of subsidy which is the domain of the State Government.
- An excavation undertaken to lay the foundation of a building would not, ordinarily, carry the intention to use the excavated earth for the purpose of filling up or levelling. A blanket determination of liability merely because ordinary earth was dug up would not be justified.- says Supreme Court
Promoters and Builders Association of Pune v. State of Maharashtra
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10717 OF 2014
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10717 OF 2014
Judgment Dated : 03/12/2014
CORAM : RANJAN GOGOI .J, R.K. AGRAWAL .J
CATCHPHRASE:
Excavation of ordinary earth without authorization under the Act of 1957 would make the person liable not only to payment of penalty under the Mumbai Revenue Code but also for criminal prosecution under the Act of 1957.
CONCLUSION:
1.A blanket determination of liability merely because ordinary earth was dug up would not be justified. what would be required is a more precise determination of the end use of the excavated earth; a finding on the correctness of the stand of the builders that the extracted earth was not
used commercially but was redeployed in the building operations.
1.A blanket determination of liability merely because ordinary earth was dug up would not be justified. what would be required is a more precise determination of the end use of the excavated earth; a finding on the correctness of the stand of the builders that the extracted earth was not
used commercially but was redeployed in the building operations.
- The 3-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court reiterated that " a registered owner of the vehicle should not be held liable for compensation if the vehicle is not in his possession and control."
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10608-10609 OF 2014
Judgment Dated : 01/12/2014
CORAM : DIPAK MISRA .J, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN .J, UDAY UMESH LALIT .J
Brief Facts of the Case:
1.The Appellant was the registered owner along with respondent no.2. 2. The respondent no. 2 was in control and possession of the vehicle.
3. He had taken the vehicle from the dealer without paying the full premium to the insurance company and thereby getting the vehicle insured.
3. He had taken the vehicle from the dealer without paying the full premium to the insurance company and thereby getting the vehicle insured.
CATCHPHRASE:
1.Application of Sec.146 Motor Vehicle Act,1988
- The Supreme Court directed the 4 states A.P., M.P, Meghalaya and Telangana to notify Victim Compensation Scheme ( Sec.357-A CrPC) within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
- The Supreme Court further stated that "At the stage of final hearing it is obligatory on the part of the Court to advert to the provision and record a finding whether a case for grant of compensation has been made out and, if so, who is entitled to compensation and how much.
SURESH & ANR v. STATE OF HARYANA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 420 OF 2012
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 420 OF 2012
Judgment Dated : 28/11/2014
CORAM : V. GOPALA GOWDA .J, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL .J
Brief Facts of the Case:
The deceased was kidnapped - killed and thrown in the gutter - The accused has concealed all the material evidence - Sec.106 Indian Evidence Act,1872 attracted - Accused accordingly convicted.
CATCHPHARSE:
How this case is related to Victim Compensation Scheme?
1. The Complainant had also filed Criminal Revision No.1477 of 2004 for compensation to the family members of deceased and the same was dismissed by the Court without any reason.
2. This Matter also accompanied to the Hon'ble Supreme Court along with the above appeal and the Apex Court held that There is no reason as to why the victim family should not be awarded compensation under Section 357-A by the State.
3. The State of Haryana is liable to pay compensation to the family of the deceased.
4. The Apex Court determine the interim compensation payable for the two deaths to be rupees ten lacs, without prejudice to any other rights or remedies of the victim family in any other proceedings.
- "Persons who are likely to erode the credibility of the police ought not to enter the police force". - SC
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. v. PARVEZ KHAN
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10613 OF 2014
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10613 OF 2014
Judgment Dated : 01/12/2014
CORAM : T.S. THAKUR .J, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL .J
Brief Facts of the Case:
Parvez Khan was applied for compassionate appointment - he was involved in two criminal cases - Hence, S.P held that he was not eligible for appointment in Government service and closed his case.
Parvez Khan was applied for compassionate appointment - he was involved in two criminal cases - Hence, S.P held that he was not eligible for appointment in Government service and closed his case.
OBSERVATION:
1. A candidate to be recruited to the police service must be worthy of confidence and must be a person of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity.
1. A candidate to be recruited to the police service must be worthy of confidence and must be a person of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity.
2.A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category.
CATCHPHRASE:
Even if the person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was completely exonerated.
Even if the person is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was completely exonerated.
- It is a settled principle of law that as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if a fact lies especially within the knowledge of a person, entire burden lies upon him about the said fact.- Says Madras High Court
TRIVIA: The term " any person" in the above mentioned act also include "Accused".
Lakshmi v. State
Crl.A.(MD)No.250 of 2007
Crl.A.(MD)No.250 of 2007
Judgment Dated : 28/11/2014
CORAM : A. SELVAM .J , V.S.RAVI .J
informative
ReplyDelete