Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The action of the State Government, in not absorbing the writ applicants in the temporary establishment from the work charged on completion of five years of continuous service and fulfillment of other conditions, is contrary to the concept of social and economic justice. The State, as a model employer, should not have guillotined the legitimate aspirations of the employees. It created a situation with hopes ending in despair.

Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha Vs. State of Gujarat {Gujarat High Court, 4 Feb 2016}

A Judge must take note of the common man's sense of justice and not merely be a slave of logic and the letter of the law.

S.D. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat {Gujarat High Court, 4 Feb 2016}

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 107 - object of - directed the petitioner to maintain complete peace and tranquility and shall not cause any harassment to the complainant. If it is found that he is creating trouble, then it will be open for the authority to proceed against the applicant once again in accordance with law.

Praskash Shobrajmal Methawani Vs. State of Gujarat {Gujarat High Court, 3 Feb 2016}

Prevention of Food Adulteration Acts & Rules - misbranding that the water in question is safer for human consumption particularly for babies and pregnant women, is itself a violation of Section 2 (ix)(e) of the Act, which is an offence under Section 7(ii) and is punishable under Section 16 read with Section 7 of the Act.

Mount Everest Mineral Water Ltd Vs. State {Delhi High Court, 2 Feb 2016}

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - S. 138 - Partnership Firm - The process issued against the petitioner alone for the offence under section 138 read with section 141 of the NI Act without joining the partnership firm stands quashed and set aside.

Philip J Vs. Ashapura Minechem Ltd. {Bombay High Court, 29 Jan 2016}

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 304A & 304 - Distinction between Section 304A i.e. rash or negligent act and Section 304 i.e. culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Rameshkumar Shankarlal Shah Vs. State of Gujarat {Gujarat High Court, 29 Jan 2016}

Review - There is no dispute at all in the present case that the special leave petition was dismissed in limine on 7th of February 2005. This review petition filed in 2015 i.e. more than 10 years after the dismissal of the SLP, is completely misconceived. In view of the law declared by the Supreme Court, it is clearly an abuse of the process of the court.

Jia Lal Kapur Vs. UOI {Delhi High Court, 27 Jan 2016}

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Ss. 21 & 22 - Chandigarh Maintenance of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009 - R. 19 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - S. 12 - the house in question which is owned by father-in-law of the petitioner ) is not a "shared household" in which the petitioner has any right of residence which can be enforced under the 2005 Act - This being the position, no question of the 2007 Act being used at cross purposes with the 2005 Act arises in this case.

Hamina Kang Vs. District Magistrate (U.T.), Chandigarh {Punjab and Haryana High Court, 25 Jan 2016}

Penal Code, 1860 - S.209 - Scope of - Dishonestly making false claim in Court - Courts below shall invoke Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code in appropriate cases to prevent the abuse of process of law, secure the ends of justice, keep the path of justice clear of obstructions and give effect to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court - The Delhi Judicial Academy shall sensitize the judges with respect to the scope of Section 209 of the Indian Penal Code.

HS Bedi Vs. National Highway Authority of India {Delhi High Court, 22 Jan 2016}

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 354, 341, 509, 323, 325, 352 - Criminal P.C. 1973 - Ss. 397, 401 - Revisional Jurisdiction of High Court - Finding of acquittal in revision - Re-appreciate the evidence - On the ground that there are patent illegalities while evaluating the factual matrix of the case - Scope of.

Manju Vs. State {Delhi High Court, 15 Jan 2016}

Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - S.13(2) - The right of the Bank under the SARFAESI Act should not be lightly interfered with. It is in greater public interest that undue fetter is not put on the rights of the Banks and Financial Institutions to recover their dues by taking recourse to the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. Needless to say, if the Banks and Financial Institutions transgress their jurisdiction or act beyond the four corners of the statute, the court will strike down such action.

Samarendra Nath Bhattacharjee Vs. State Bank of India {Calcutta High Court, 15 Jan 2016}

Civil P.C. 1908 - O.12 R.6 - Judgment on admissions - Dismissal of the appeal would not preclude the appellant to file a fresh application praying for a decree on admission after admission/denial of the documents is done.

Kumari Sushila Yadav Vs. Lt Col. (Retd.) Atul Chaudhary {Delhi High Court, 14 Jan 2016}

Reservation - The State has a constitutional duty to empower certain sections of society who needed succor to uplift themselves from their contemptible situation. Article 46 of the Constitution of India, though a directive principle, is in the nature of benchmark for good governance to the government. The above Article was intended to help the depressed classes who otherwise had little opportunity of raising their standards.

Director, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh Vs. Central Administrative Tribunal {Punjab and Haryana High Court, 13 Jan 2016}

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - S.19 - Previous sanction necessary for prosecution - If the entire material of investigation is not sent to the sanctioning authority, the consequent sanction order becomes invalid on account of non-application of mind by the sanctioning authority - a valid sanction is a sine qua non for initiating proceedings under POCA against a public officer.

Ashok Kumar Aggarwal Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation {Delhi High Court, 13 Jan 2016}

National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 - Section 10(2) - Right to establish a Minority Educational Institution - the petitioners cannot be granted the benefit of the minority status in the absence of an appropriate certificate having been issued from the competent authority.

D.S. Jain Memorial Educational Trust Vs. Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak {Punjab and Haryana High Court, 13 Jan 2016}

The main object of interrogatories is to save expenses and time by enabling a party to obtain from his opponent information as to facts material to the questions in dispute between them and to obtain admissions of any facts which he has to prove on any issue which is raised between them.

M/s. Ram Pravesh Rai Estate (P) Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh @ Munna {Patna High Court, 12 Jan 2016}

Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Custody of Minor - Violation of the consensual parenting plan accepted by the Guardianship Court - Father is guilty of contempt of court - There is no bona fide or genuine apology - In selecting a guardian the paramount consideration is that of a welfare and well-being of the child - As there is a clear breach of the undertaking appropriate directions have to be issued to close the breach - Duty of contempt court to ensure compliance of orders - The views of a minor are relevant but not determinative or conclusive - Orders relating to custody of the minor are temporary in nature - Doctrine of res judicata is not applicable - Correctness of the order has to be judged by a superior court or by a court having jurisdiction to do so - An undertaking has all the force of an injunction.

D.K.C. Vs. K.C. {Delhi High Court, 12 Jan 2016}

Supreme Law © 2015 - Blogger Templates Designed by