Friday, 2 September 2016

couch mode print story

Dr. Kuldeep Kaushik Vs. State of U.P. {Allahabad High Court, 02-09-2016}

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Ss. 167 (2), 436 & 437 - The grounds for providing remand under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. and granting bail to the accused under Sections 436 and 437 Cr.P.C. by the magistrate are entirely on different grounds and grounds for both cannot be intermingled. Once remand under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is being ordered by the magistrate and if any bail application is being moved then it is to be considered by the magistrate as per provision of Section 436 and 437 of the Cr.P.C. as the case may be and magistrate is liable to decide the same on the same day, but if is not being done by him on the same day then specific reasons are to be mentioned.

Thursday, 1 September 2016

couch mode print story

Himanshu Bipinchandra Shukla Vs. State of Gujarat {Gujarat High Court, 1 Sep 2016}

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 319 - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence - Practically whenever it appears from the evidence to the Court during the course of any inquiry into or trial of any offence that any person not being an accused offence as committed any offence for which he could be tried together, then the Court may proceed again said person for which he appears to have committed. Therefore, what is material is simple interpretation of the word "appears" which literally means "the way that someone or something looks" or thereby, if, it appears from the evidence available on record, that particular person has committed an offence, Court has ample power to join as such person as an accused subject to sufficient evidence.

couch mode print story

Sudesh Vs. Suresh Solanki [Delhi High Court, 31-08-2016]

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - S. 9 & 13(1)(ia) - Divorce - Mental Cruelty - Wife filed petition for Restitution of conjugal rights - Filing of a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights after 13 years of leaving the matrimonial home does not seem to be a bonafide act on her part for the re-union. That too with the background already litigating with the respondent by filing a petition under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, 2005 as well for maintenance much prior to that. In the given facts, learned Judge, Family Court has rightly dismissed her petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

Wednesday, 31 August 2016

couch mode print story

Babita Lila Vs. Union of India [Supreme Court of India, 31-08-2016]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 195 (4) - Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation)-I Bhopal, (M.P.) cannot be construed to be an authority to whom appeal would ordinarily lie from the decisions/orders of the I.T.Os. involved in the search proceedings in the case in hand so as to empower him to lodge the complaint in view of the restrictive preconditions imposed by Section 195 of the Code. The complaint filed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, (Investigation)-I, Bhopal (M.P.), thus on an overall analysis of the facts of the case and the law involved has to be held as incompetent.

couch mode print story

Yatin Narendra Oza Vs. Khemchand Rajaram Koshti {Supreme Court of India, 31 Aug 2016}

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Court emphasise the necessity of dignified behavior, obedience to the norms of professional ethics and sustenance of decorum of the institution, for all combined stabilize the nobility of the profession and ensure the faith in the justice delivery system which is extremely dear to a civilized society.

Monday, 9 May 2016

couch mode print story

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

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.

couch mode print story

Subodh Uniyal Vs. Speaker Legislative Assembly {Uttaranchal 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'.

couch mode print story

Bhopal Singh Vs. State of U.P. {Allahabad 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.

Friday, 6 May 2016

couch mode print story

Shaikh Zahid Mukhtar Vs State of Maharashtra {Bombay High Court, 6 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.

Thursday, 5 May 2016

couch mode print story

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

Wednesday, 4 May 2016

couch mode print story

New India Assurance Co. Vs. Bharati Adhik Patil {Bombay High Court, 4 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?

Monday, 2 May 2016

couch mode print story

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

couch mode print story

Tim Delhi Airport Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Special Commissioner - II, Department of Trade & Taxes {Delhi 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.

Friday, 29 April 2016

couch mode print story

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

Wednesday, 27 April 2016

couch mode print story

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

Tuesday, 26 April 2016

couch mode print story

K. Ravi Vs. State {Madras High Court, 26 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.

couch mode print story

Amnah Bint Basheer Vs. Union of India {Kerala 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.