Delhi Judicial (Preliminary) Examination , 2015 - Writ petitions calling in question some of the questions and answer key - Scope and ambit of judicial review when a multiple choice question paper and answer key are questioned - Partly allowed the writ petitions with the direction that question Nos.94, 97, 113 and 197 in the Multiple Choice Question Paper shall be deleted - the respondents would proceed to recompute the marks and the eligibility list.

Sumit Kumar Vs. High Court of Delhi {Delhi High Court, 9 May, 2016}

The Speaker might have been elected on the ticket of a party, but when he is performing the job of a Speaker, he has to be unbiased and non- partisan, leaving aside his party affiliations. A Speaker includes pro-tem Speaker and the likes. It is apparent on the basis of documents on record, in the instant case, that the opportunity to the liking of the petitioners was not granted by the Speaker, but that opportunity cannot be termed as 'insufficient opportunity'.

Subodh Uniyal Vs. Speaker Legislative Assembly {Uttaranchal High Court, 9 May 2016}

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 376, 323, 506 - It appears that the victim fall in the company of other people on whose instigation, she had filed a false report against the accused. Charge sheet was also submitted against the mother of the victim. Thus, the whole prosecution case appears to be the bundle of incorrect facts, hence, the conviction cannot be sustained.

Bhopal Singh Vs. State of U.P. {Allahabad High Court, 9 May 2016}

The challenge in this group of Petitions is to various provisions of the Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 as amended by the Maharashtra Animal Preservation (Amendment) Act,1995.

Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar Vs State of Maharashtra {Bombay High Court, 6 May 2016}

Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 65-B - Footage of CCTV Camera - Under S. 65B(4) if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied: (a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement; (b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced; (c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record; (d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and (e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device.

Rajesh Dhannalal Daware Vs. State of Maharashtra {Bombay High Court, 5 May 2016}

Whether in view of the bar under section 167 of the Motor Vehicles Act and u/s 3(5) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, a subsequent claim before either of the fora i.e., the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal or the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, is maintainable when the earlier claim is rejected by the other forum? Whether the claim is barred by limitation under section 10 of the Workmen's Compensation Act?

New India Assurance Co. Vs. Bharati Adhik Patil {Bombay High Court, 4 May 2016}

Evidence - Witness - While appreciating the evidence the court cannot ignore the ground realities. In the present day world, people avoid to become a witness to a crime as they consider it as a civil dispute between the two parties. This apathy of the public is a great hurdle in the administration of criminal justice. The reasons for such apathy of the public are well known. No one wants to invite the enmity of the accused persons because still no effective mechanism exists to ensure safety of the witnesses of a crime.

Kalp Narain Vs. State of U.P. {Allahabad High Court, 2 May 2016}

Delhi Value Added Tax Act, 2004 - Section 85 - the question whether a transaction entails transfer of the right to use would have to be examined by ascertaining the true nature and intention of the parties and whether the necessary ingredients of sale are present. The Tribunal‟s decision to the extent that it holds that possession of the hoardings is not relevant, cannot be accepted.

Tim Delhi Airport Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Special Commissioner - II, Department of Trade & Taxes {Delhi High Court, 2 May 2016}

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - A plaint cannot be rejected in part by a civil court, whilst exercising its powers under Order VII, Rule 11.

Satya Pal Gupta Vs. Sudhir Kumar Gupta {Delhi High Court, 29 Apr 2016}

Adoption - Foreign Adoption - There are two minors, one male and one female, aged today nine and seven years respectively, who have, for the better part of their childhood, been footballed between their birth mother, one agency, another agency, been once previously placed for adoption only to see that possible dream evaporate and are now been suggested for adoption again. Their bond with their mother, if it existed, was broken. The previous adoptive parents came to India and built a bond with them. The birth mother returned with her claim. The bond with the adoptive parents, hard won after a struggle, was broken again. It is difficult to even begin to imagine the kind of trauma these young children must have suffered. After all they were not abandoned at birth, but at the ages of five and three, when they must have had at least some degree of awareness.

Children of the World (India) Trust Vs. Roy Edward Roos {Bombay High Court, 27 Apr 2016}

Constitution of India - Art. 22(1) - Criminal P. C. 1973- Ss. 227 & 228 - Discharge - Framing of charge - Filing of draft charges in criminal cases - Held, getting a draft charge from the Public Prosecutor and the Court vetting it is not a practice authorised by law. It will be against the spirit of Criminal law to direct the defence counsel to file a draft charge because he is constitutionally bound to defend the accused and not offend him.

K. Ravi Vs. State {Madras High Court, 26 Apr 2016}

Constitution of India - Article 25(1) - Violation of fundamental right as guaranteed under - Prescription of dress code for All India Pre-Medical Entrance Test-2016 - Held, the right of women to have the choice of dress based on religious injunctions is a fundamental right protected under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of India, when such prescription of dress is an essential part of the religion.

Amnah Bint Basheer Vs. Union of India {Kerala High Court, 26 Apr 2016}

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 498A, 304B, 34 - Demand of Dowry - As regards Harish is concerned, he being the husband of the deceased owed a moral as well as legal responsibility towards his wife. The young bride must have left her parental house with dreams in her eyes which however could not be fulfilled and were shattered on the day of marriage itself when demand of Rs.2 lacs and swift car was made which continued till she was compelled to take the extreme step of committing suicide within six months of the marriage. That being so, even for him the sentence does not warrant any interference. Appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Harish Kumar Vs. State {Delhi High Court, 22 Apr 2016}

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11(d) - Rejection of plaint - the Geneva Convention of 1999 cannot be made applicable to the present dispute, as the MoA executed between the parties is a purely private contract not involving any public law character - That being so, the plaintiff does not have a maritime claim, so as to be entitled to invoke the maritime jurisdiction of this Court. There is, therefore, no cause of action available to the plaintiff under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of this Court and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code. Further, the plaint is also liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d), as being barred by law.

Hermes Marines Limited Vs. Capeshore Maritime Partners FZC {Gujarat High Court, 22 Apr 2016}

Reservation - Reserved category candidates belonging to ex-servicemen - Since the petitioner was the only ex-serviceman candidate and selected, he ought to have been selected by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such list relating to other ex- serviceman so as to ensure that the final ex-serviceman candidate contains one ex-serviceman candidate.

Bishnu Prasada Dash Vs. Governor, Reserve Bank of India {Orissa High Court, 20 Apr 2016}

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(i)(a) - Cruelty - the married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances at the very early of start of married life that too over a period of 1 and ½ years should not be snapped especially when the spouses have been blessed with a child and such frivolities of life cannot amount to cruelty.

Sonali Samal Vs. Vikrant Parida {Orissa High Court, 19 Apr 2016}

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13-B - Divorce by Mutual Consent - Rule of estoppel has no application in a petition under Section 13-B of the Act.

Ashish Kumar Srivastava Vs. Ankita Srivastava {Allahabad High Court, 8 Apr 2016}

Supreme Law © 2015 - Blogger Templates Designed by