Posts

Showing posts from April, 2021

U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of U.P.

U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of U.P.  - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2015 -    On 4th September, 2014, in the case of U.P. Hindi Sahitya Sammelan v. State of U.P. [Civil Appeal No.459 of 1997], a three Judges Bench held that in the absence of direction issued by the President under Article 347 of the Constitution, there is no restriction, restraint or impediment for the State Legislature in adopting one of the languages in use in the State as an official language under Article 345 of the Constitution of India.

Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India

  Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2015 -  Supreme Court Procedure related Case -  On 2nd September, 2014, in the case of Mohd. Arif @ Ashfaq v. The Registrar, Supreme Court of India & Others [Writ Petition (Crl.) No.77 of 2014], a Constitution Bench per majority held that "in review petitions arising out of those cases where the death penalty is awarded, it would be necessary to accord oral hearing in the open Court.

Manoj Narula v. Union of India

 Manoj Narula v. Union of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2015 -  Case Law Case Summary   On 27th August, 2014, in the case of Manoj Narula v. Union of India [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 289 of 2005], while dealing with the issue of choice of Ministers, a Constitution Bench per majority held that "it can always be legitimately expected, regard being had to the role of a Minister in the Council of Ministers and keeping in view the sanctity of oath he takes, the Prime Minister, while living up to the trust reposed in him, would consider not choosing a person with criminal antecedents against whom charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or charges of corruption to become a Minister of the Council of Ministers. This is what the Constitution suggests and that is the constitutional expectation from the Prime Minister. Rest has to be left to the wisdom of the Prime Minister."

Manohar Lal Sharma v. The Principal Secretary

Manohar Lal Sharma v. The Principal Secretary  - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2015 -  Case  Law Case Summary  Decision in Coal Block Allocation Case - On 25th August, 2014, in the case of Manohar Lal Sharma v. The Principal Secretary & Ors. [Writ Petition (Crl.) No.120 of 2012], it was held that the allotment of coal blocks by the Screening Committee of the Government of India, as also the allotments made through the Government dispensation route for the period 1993 to 2010 were arbitrary and illegal.

Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India

Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India   - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2015   On 7th July, 2014, in the case of Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 386 of 2005], it was held that issuance of Fatwa on rights, status and obligation of individual Muslim would not be permissible, unless asked for by the person concerned or in case of incapacity, by the person interested.

Jeeja Ghosh & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. - Supreme Court

 Jeeja Ghosh & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 12th May, 2016, in the case of Jeeja Ghosh & Anr. vs Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (C) No. 98 of 2012], the Supreme Court asked Respondent no.3 [SpiceJet Ltd] to pay Rupees Ten Lakhs to Jeeja Ghosh, an eminent activist involved in disability rights, for forcibly de-boarding her by the flight crew, because of her disability. The Court held that “a little care, a little sensitivity and a little positive attitude on the part of the officials of the airlines would not have resulted in the trauma, pain and suffering that Jeeja Ghosh had to undergo. This has resulted in violation of her human dignity and, thus, her fundamental right, though by a private enterprise (respondent No.3).” On the “finding that respondent No.3 acted in a callous manner, and in the process violated the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and Civil Aviation Requirements(CAR),2008 guidelines resulting in mental and phy

Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India, Ministry of Law - Supreme Court

 Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India, Ministry of Law  - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 13th May, 2016, in the case of Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India, Ministry of Law & Ors. [Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 184 of 2014], while examining the law on criminal defamation, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It was held that “the right to reputation is a constituent of Article 21 of the Constitution” and that reputation of “one cannot be allowed to be crucified at the altar of the other’s right of free speech. The legislature in its wisdom has not thought it appropriate to abolish criminality of defamation in the obtaining social climate.” It was further held that the “right to freedom of speech and expression is a highly valued and cherished right but the Constitution conceives of reasonable restriction. In that context criminal defamation which is in ex

Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. vs Sant Singh - Supreme Court

 Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. vs Sant Singh - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 13th May, 2016, in the case of Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. vs Sant Singh & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 5072 of 2016], it was held that the “owner of land has guarantee against being deprived of his rights except under a valid law for compelling needs of the society and not otherwise. The commercial use of land can certainly be rewarding to an individual. Initiation of acquisition for public purpose may deprive the owner of valuable land but it cannot permit another person who may be able to get permission to develop colony to take over the said land. If the law allows the State to take land for housing needs, the State itself has to keep the title or dispose of land consistent with Article 14 of the Constitution after completion of acquisition. If after initiation of acquisition, process is not to be completed, land must revert back to owner on the date of Section 4 notification under the Land Acq

Eitzen Bulk A/S vs Ashapura Minechem Ltd. - Supreme Court

 Eitzen Bulk A/S vs Ashapura Minechem Ltd. - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 13th May, 2016, in the case of Eitzen Bulk A/S vs Ashapura Minechem Ltd. & Anr. [Civil Appeal Nos. 5131-5133 of 2016], it was held “where the parties choose a juridical seat of Arbitration outside India and provide that the law which governs Arbitration will be a law other than Indian law, part I of the Arbitration Act would not have any application and, therefore, the award debtor would not be entitled to challenge the award by raising objections under Section 34 before a Court in India. A Court in India could not have jurisdiction to entertain such objections under Section 34 in such a case.” It was further held that “as a matter of fact the mere choosing of the juridical seat of Arbitration attracts the law applicable to such location. In other words it would not be necessary to specify which law would apply to the Arbitration proceedings, since the law of the particular country would appl

Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. through its Secretary / Mahaprandhak & Anr. vs Raghunath Singh Rana

Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. through its Secretary / Mahaprandhak & Anr. vs Raghunath Singh Rana - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 17th May, 2016, in the case of Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd. through its Secretary / Mahaprandhak & Anr. vs Raghunath Singh Rana & Ors.[Civil Appeal No.2265 of 2011], it was held that compliance of principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings “is not a mere formality, more so when the statutory provisions specifically provides that disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted with due observations of the principles of natural justice.”

M/s Madura Coats Limited vs M/s Modi Rubber Ltd. - Supreme Court Important

 M/s Madura Coats Limited vs M/s Modi Rubber Ltd. - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 29th June, 2016, in the case of M/s Madura Coats Limited vs M/s Modi Rubber Ltd. & Anr. [Civil Appeal No. 1475 of 2006], a three Judges Bench held that “different situations can arise in the process of winding up a company under the Companies Act but whatever be the situation, whenever a reference is made to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) under Sections 15 and 16 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (SICA’), the provisions of the SICA would come into play and they would prevail over the provisions of the Companies Act and proceedings under the Companies Act must give way to proceedings under the SICA.” Accordingly, the view taken by the High Court in concluding that the winding up proceedings before the Company Court cannot continue after a reference has been registered by the BIFR and an enquiry initiated under Section 16 of the

Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others vs Union of India

 Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others vs Union of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 30th June, 2016, in the case of Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Others vs Union of India & Others [Writ Petition (Civil) No.521 of 2008], the Court directed the Government to extend three percent reservation to ‘persons with disability’ (“PWD”) as defined under Section 2(t) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 “in all IDENTIFIED POSTS in Group A and Group B, irrespective of the mode of filling up of such posts.”

M/s Sciemed Overseas Inc. vs BOC India Limited - Supreme Court

 M/s Sciemed Overseas Inc. vs BOC India Limited - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 11th January, 2016, in the case of M/s Sciemed Overseas Inc. vs BOC India Limited & Ors. [SLP © No. 29125 of 2008], while examining the question as to whether the High Court was correct in imposing costs of Rs.10 lakhs on the petitioner for filing a false or misleading affidavit in the Court, the Bench held that “the imposition of costs, although somewhat steep, was fully justified” The Bench observed that “a global search of cases pertaining to the filing of a false affidavit indicates that the number of such cases that are reported has shown an alarming increase in the last fifteen years as compared to the number of such cases prior to that. This ' is illustrative of the malaise that is slowly but surely creeping in. This ‘trend’ is certainly an unhealthy one that should be strongly discouraged, well before the filing of false affidavits gets to be treated as a routine and normal a

Pooja Pal vs Union of India - Supreme Court

 Pooja Pal vs Union of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 22nd January, 2016, in the case of Pooja Pal vs Union of India & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No.77 of 2016], where the appellant’s husband had been mercilessly killed by a group of gun wielding assailants in a public place, in the open view of all concerned, the CBI was entrusted with the task of undertaking a de novo investigation in the incident. It was held that that “notwithstanding the pendency of the trial, and the availability of the power of the courts below under Sections 311 and 391 of the Code read with Section 165 of the Evidence Act, it is of overwhelming and imperative necessity that to rule out any possibility of denial of justice to the parties and more importantly to instill and sustain the confidence of the community at large, the CBI ought to be directed to undertake a de novo investigation in the incident.” The Bench was of the view that “in the unique facts and circumstances of the case any

Dharam Pal vs State of Haryana - Supreme Court

 Dharam Pal vs State of Haryana - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 29th January, 2016, in the case of Dharam Pal vs State of Haryana & Ors. [Criminal Appeal No. 85 of 2016], it was held that the “Constitutional courts can direct for further investigation or investigation by some other investigating agency. The purpose is, there has to be a fair investigation and a fair trial. The fair trial may be quite difficult unless there is a fair investigation.” It was held that though “direction for further investigation by another agency has  to be very sparingly issued” but the facts depicted in this case compelled it to exercise the said power so that miscarriage of justice is avoided. The Bench elucidated that the “power to order fresh, de-novo or re-investigation being vested with the Constitutional Courts, the commencement of a trial and examination of some witnesses cannot be an absolute impediment for exercising the said constitutional power which is meant to ensure a fa

in Re – Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons - Supreme Court

 in Re – Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 5th February, 2016, in Re – Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisons [Writ Petition (Civil) No.406 of 2013], it was held that prisoners, like all human beings, deserve to be treated with dignity and to give effect to this, following directions were issued by the Supreme Court: “(i) The Under Trial Review Committee in every district should meet every quarter and the first such meeting should take place on or before 31st March, 2016. The Secretary of the District Legal Services Committee should attend each meeting of the Under Trial Review Committee and follow up the discussions with appropriate steps for the release of undertrial prisoners and convicts who have undergone their sentence or are entitled to release because of remission granted to them; (ii) The Under Trial Review Committee should specifically look into aspects pertaining to effective implementation of Section 436 of the Cr.P.C. and Sectio

Richa Mishra vs State of Chhattisgarh - Supreme Court Case

 Richa Mishra vs State of Chhattisgarh - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 8th February, 2016, in the case of Richa Mishra vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 274 of 2016], while examining an issue pertaining to appointment for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the Bench held that “when affirmative actions are taken by lawmaker, in the form of subordinate legislation, they need to be enforced appropriately so that the purpose that is intended is suitably achieved.” In the facts and circumstances of this case, it was held that “the intention of rule making authority was, and it continues to be so, to give benefit to age relaxation to women candidates and thus, the appellant was entitled to age relaxation as per Rule 4 of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Special Provision for appointment of women) Rules, 1997 read with State Services Examination, 2003 and she was, therefore, eligible to be considered for the post of Dy.S.P. The Bench observed that “th

Tekan alias Tekram vs State of Madhya Pradesh

 Tekan alias Tekram vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) - Supreme Court Judgment 2016 - On 11th February, 2016, in the case of Tekan alias Tekram vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) [Criminal Appeal No. 884 of 2015] where the prosecutrix, a blind and an illiterate girl, was subjected to sexual intercourse on the promise of marriage, the Supreme Court while examining the issue relating to relief and rehabilitation of victims of rape, directed all the States and Union Territories to make all endeavour to formulate a uniform scheme for providing victim compensation in respect of rape/sexual exploitation with the physically handicapped women as required under the law taking into consideration the scheme framed by the State of Goa for rape victim compensation. So far as the instant case was concerned, the respondent-State was directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month as victim compensation to the victim till her life time.

Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj & Others vs Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly

 Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj & Others vs Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rep. by its Secretary  - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 12th February, 2016, in the case of Alagaapuram R. Mohanraj & Others vs Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Rep. by its Secretary & Another [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 455 of 2015], it was held that “the scope and amplitude of the freedom of speech inhering in a citizen and available to a member of the legislative body are totally different. No citizen has a right to enter the legislative body and exercise his freedom of speech unless he first gets elected to such a legislative body in accordance with law. No legislator would continue to enjoy the freedom of speech contemplated under Articles 105 and 194 of the Constitution after the cessation of the membership of the legislative body.” It was further held that “no doubt, when a legislator is prevented from participating in the proceedings of the House during the currency of the membership b

Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors. vs Shirdi Nagar Panchayat

 Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors. vs Shirdi Nagar Panchayat - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 22nd February, 2016, in the case of Sayyed Ratanbhai Sayeed (D) Th. Lrs. & Ors. vs Shirdi Nagar Panchayat & Anr. [Civil Appeal No.14016 of 2015], while granting relief to appellants-small scale shopkeepers located in the vicinity of the internationally revered seat of Shirdi Sai Baba who were facing ouster from their sites, the Supreme Court held that the “consequence of the appellants being uprooted from their present sites of business” “would spell an overall dislocation in their lives.” The Bench held that the eviction of appellants “would assuredly eventuate a human problem” nevertheless “for the cause of paramount public interest, their eviction is unavoidable.” Accordingly, the Bench considered it appropriate to direct “the State and its functionaries to undertake an exercise to identify a suitable site to accommodate the appellants” but “in case the

Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities & Fraud Cell vs Ramesh Gelli

 Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities & Fraud Cell vs Ramesh Gelli - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 23rd February, 2016, in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation, Bank Securities & Fraud Cell vs Ramesh Gelli and others [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1077-1081 of 2013], it was held that the accused-Chairman/Managing Director and Executive Director of Global Trust Bank ( a private bank before its amalgamation with the public sector bank Oriental Bank of Commerce) were public servants for the purposes of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, by virtue of the provisions of Section 46A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 and the prosecutions launched against them under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for transactions relating to the period prior to amalgamation of Global Trust Bank with the Oriental Bank of Commerce were maintainable in law.

Hina vs Union of India - Supreme Court

 Hina vs Union of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 23rd February, 2016, in the case of Hina vs Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 1676 of 2016], it was held that the second respondent-Corporation was not justified in rejecting the application of appellant for allotment of retail outlet of petroleum/diesel dealership on the ground that the age proof submitted by her was not of the Secondary School as per the norms, but of a Higher Secondary School. Noting that the appellant had submitted an attested copy of the School Leaving Certificate issued by a Higher Secondary School, the Bench held that when “a copy of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate can be accepted as proof of age, it does not even strike to common sense as to why the copy of the Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate, duly attested, cannot be accepted as proof of age.”

Gajanan Dashrath Kharate vs State of Maharashtra - Supreme Court

 Gajanan Dashrath Kharate vs State of Maharashtra - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 26th February, 2016, in the case of Gajanan Dashrath Kharate vs State of Maharashtra [Criminal Appeal No. 2057 of 2010], while affirming the conviction of accused-appellant for committing the murder of his father, the Supreme Court held that “when an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer. On the date of occurrence, when accused and his father Dashrath were in the house and when th

Sadhu Saran Singh vs State of U.P. - Supreme Court

 Sadhu Saran Singh vs State of U.P. - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 26th February, 2016, in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh vs State of U.P. and Ors. [Criminal Appeal Nos. 1467-1468 of 2005], it was held that the entire case cannot be derailed “on the mere ground of absence of independent witness as long as the evidence of the eyewitness, though interested, is trustworthy.” The Bench held that “as far as the non-examination of any other independent witness is concerned, there is no doubt that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness. But, the prosecution case cannot be doubted on this ground alone. In these days, civilized people are generally insensitive to come forward to give any statement in respect of any criminal offence. Unless it is inevitable, people normally keep away from the Court as they feel it distressing and stressful. Though this kind of human behaviour is indeed unfortunate, but it is a normal phenomena. We cannot ignore this

Nagabhushanammal (D) by Lrs. vs C. Chandikeswaralingam - Supreme Court

 Nagabhushanammal (D) by Lrs. vs C. Chandikeswaralingam - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -   On 26th February, 2016, in the case of Nagabhushanammal (D) by Lrs. vs C. Chandikeswaralingam [Civil Appeal No.1858-59 of 2016], it was held that an earlier suit for possession and injunction based on a settlement deed executed by the husband of the plaintiff did not act as Res Judicata to the subsequent suit of plaintiff for partition. The Bench held that “the suit filed by the plaintiff in 1962, based on the settlement deed executed by her husband in her favour and the sufferance of the dismissal of the suit, will not, in any way, be a bar for making a claim for her share, if any, of the family property, if otherwise permissible under law. As succinctly addressed by the first appellate court, the 1962 suit for the entire property was based on a settlement deed and it was a suit for possession. Whereas, the 1988 suit for partition was for plaintiff’s one-half share in the property based

State of M.P. vs Udaibhan

 State of M.P. vs Udaibhan - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 1st March, 2016, in the case of State of M.P. vs Udaibhan [Criminal Appeal No. 182 of 2016], it was held that “it is the duty of the Court awarding sentence to ensure justice to both the parties and therefore undue leniency in awarding sentence needs to be avoided because it does not have the necessary effect of being a deterrent for the accused and does not re-assure the society that the offender has been properly dealt with. It is not a very healthy situation to leave the injured and complainant side thoroughly dissatisfied with a very lenient punishment to the accused.”

Uttam vs Saubhag Singh - Supreme Court

 Uttam vs Saubhag Singh  - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 2nd March, 2016, in the case of Uttam vs Saubhag Singh & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 2360 of 2005], the law, insofar as it applies to joint family property governed by the Mitakshara School, prior to the amendment of 2005, was summarized as follows:- “(i) when a male Hindu dies after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, having at the time of his death an interest in Mitakshara coparcenary property, his interest in the property will devolve by survivorship upon the surviving members of the coparcenary (vide Section 6); (ii) to proposition (i), an exception is contained in Section 30 Explanation of the Act, making it clear that notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, the interest of a male Hindu in Mitakshara coparcenary property is property that can be disposed of by him by will or other testamentary disposition; (iii) a second exception engrafted on proposition (i) is contained in the proviso

Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha vs State of Haryana

 Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha vs State of Haryana - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 4th March, 2016, in the case of Anant Prakash Sinha @ Anant Sinha vs State of Haryana & Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 131 of 2016], the Bench elucidated the principles that the Court must keep in view while adding or altering a charge under Section 216 CrPC. It was held that “the Court can change or alter the charge if there is defect or something is left out. The test is, it must be founded on the material available on record. It can be on the basis of the complaint or the FIR or accompanying documents or the material brought on record during the course of trial. It can also be done at any time before pronouncement of judgment. It is not necessary to advert to each and every circumstance. Suffice it to say, if the court has not framed a charge despite the material on record, it has the jurisdiction to add a charge. Similarly, it has the authority to alter the charge. The principle th

Goa Foundation & another vs State of Goa

 Goa Foundation & another vs State of Goa - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 29th March, 2016, in the case of Goa Foundation & another vs State of Goa & another [Writ Petition (Civil) No.131 of 2009], while dwelling on the competence of the State Legislature to enact the State Amendment Act in view of an earlier decision of this Court, it was held that “the power to invalidate a legislative or executive act lies with the Court. A judicial pronouncement, either declaratory or conferring rights on the citizens cannot be set at naught by a subsequent legislative act for that would amount to an encroachment on the judicial powers. However, the legislature would be competent to pass an amending or a validating act, if deemed fit, with retrospective effect removing the basis of the decision of the Court. Even in such a situation the courts may not approve a retrospective deprivation of accrued rights arising from a judgment by means of a subsequent legislation. Howev

State of Punjab & Anr. vs Brijeshwar Singh Chahal

 State of Punjab & Anr. vs Brijeshwar Singh Chahal - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 30th March, 2016, in the case of State of Punjab & Anr. vs Brijeshwar Singh Chahal & Anr. [Civil Appeal No.3194 of 2016], while holding that appointment of Law Officers by the State Governments need to be made on a fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory and objective basis, the following propositions were summed up by the Supreme Court as legally unexceptionable:  “(i) The Government and so also all public bodies are trustees of the power vested in them.  (ii) Discharge of the trust reposed in them in the best possible manner is their primary duty.  (iii) The power to engage, employ or recruit servants, agents, advisors and representatives must like any other power be exercised in a fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and objective manner.  (iv) The duty to act in a fair, reasonable, non-discriminatory and objective manner is a facet of the Rule of Law in a constitutional democr

Savelife Foundation & Anr. vs Union of India

 Savelife Foundation & Anr. vs Union of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 30th March, 2016, in the case of Savelife Foundation & Anr. vs Union of India & Anr. [Writ Petition (C) No. 235 of 2012], the Supreme Court examined a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution for development of supportive legal framework to protect Samaritans i.e. bystanders and passers-by who render help to victims of road accidents. Referring to the guidelines and standard operating procedure issued by the Central Government, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways for protection and examination of good Samaritans vide Notifications dated 12-5-2015 and 21-01-2016, the Bench ordered that the guidelines as modified by it “be complied with by the Union Territories and all the functionaries of the State Governments as law laid down by this Court under Article 32 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India and the same be treated as binding as per the mandate of Article 14

Raghavendra Swamy Mutt vs. Uttaradi Mutt - Supreme Court

 Raghavendra Swamy Mutt vs. Uttaradi Mutt - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -    On 30th March, in the case of Raghavendra Swamy Mutt vs. Uttaradi Mutt [Civil Appeal No.3190 of 2016], it was held that “the High Court cannot admit a second appeal without examining whether it raises any substantial question of law for admission and thereafter, it is obliged to formulate the substantial question of law. Solely because the Court has the jurisdiction to pass an ex parte order, it does not empower it not to formulate the substantial question of law for the purpose of admission, defer the date of admission and pass an order of stay or grant an interim relief. That is not the scheme of CPC after its amendment in 1976 and that is not the tenor of precedents of this Court.”

Section 225A IPC in Hindi and English

 Section 225A IPC in Hindi and English Section 225A of IPC 1860:- Omission to apprehend, or sufferance of escape, on part of public servant, in cases not otherwise, provided for - Whoever, being a public servant legally bound as such public servant to apprehend, or to keep in confinement, any person in any case not provided for in section 221, section 222 or section 223, or in any other law for the time being in force, omits to apprehend that person or suffers him to escape from confinement, shall be punished (a) if he does so intentionally, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and  (b) if he does so negligently, with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Case Law Related to Section 225A of Indian Penal Code 1860: Malhu Yadav & Ors. Appellants vs State Of Bihar Respondent on 1 May, 2002 Sohan Lal vs State Of Ut

Section 225 IPC in Hindi and English

 Section 225 IPC in Hindi and English Section 225 of IPC 1860:- Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person - Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of any other person for an offence, or rescues or attempts to rescue any other person from any custody in which that person is lawfully detained for an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; or, if the person to be apprehended, or the person rescued or attempted to be rescued, is charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; or, if the person to be apprehended, or rescued, or attempted to be rescued, is charged with or liable to

Section 224 IPC in Hindi and English

 Section 224 IPC in Hindi and English Section 224 of IPC 1860:- Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful apprehension - Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of himself for any offence with which he is charged or of which he has been convicted, or escapes or attempts to escape from any custody in which he is lawfully detained for any such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Explanation - The punishment in this section is in addition to the punishment for which the person to be apprehended or detained in custody was liable for the offence with which he was charged, or of which he was convicted. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Case Law Related to Section 224 of Indian Penal Code 1860: Kanta Prashad vs Delhi Administration(And on 6 February, 1958 Sadashio Mundaji Bhalerao vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 Novembe

Section 223 IPC in Hindi and English

 Section 223 IPC in Hindi and English Section 223 of IPC 1860:-  Escape from confinement or custody negligently suffered by public servant - Whoever, being a public servant legally bound as such public servant to keep in confinement any person charged with or convicted of any offence or lawfully committed to custody, negligently suffers such person to escape from confinement, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Case Law Related to Section 223 of Indian Penal Code 1860: Vivek Gupta vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 25 September, 2003 Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - Full Document Willie (William) Slaney vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 31 October, 1955 Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney vs The State Of Bombay on 4 May, 1956 Kuldip Yadav & Ors vs State Of Bihar on 11 April, 2011 Ajay Agarwal vs Union Of India And Ors on 5 May, 1993 R. Sai Bharathi vs

Section 222 IPC in Hindi and English

 Section 222 IPC in Hindi and English Section 222 of IPC 1860:-  Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend person under sentence or lawfully committed - Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend or to keep in confinement any person under sentence of a Court of Justice for any offence or lawfully committed to custody, intentionally omits to apprehend such person, or intentionally suffers such person to escape or intentionally aids such person in escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, shall be punished as follows, that is to say :- with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, is under sentence of death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, with or without fine, if the person in con

Section 221 IPC in Hindi and English

 Section221 IPC in Hindi and English Section 221 of IPC 1860:-Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend – Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend or to keep in confinement any person charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence, intentionally omits to apprehend such person, or intentionally suffers such person to escape, or intentionally aids such person in escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, shall be punished as follows, that is to say :- with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with, or liable to be apprehended for, an offence punishable with death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was

Modern Dental College vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Supreme Court Case

 Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. vs State of Madhya Pradesh - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 2nd May, 2016, in the case of Modern Dental College and Research Centre & Ors. vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.4060 of 2009], the appellantsunaided private medical and dental colleges challenged the validity/vires of the provisions of a statute passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Legislature i.e. 'Niji Vyavasayik Shikshan Sanstha (Pravesh Ka Viniyaman Avam Shulk Ka Nirdharan) Adhiniyam, 2007'; and also vires of the Rules framed under the said Act, namely, Admissions Rules, 2008 and the Madhya Pradesh Private Medical and Dental Post Graduate Courses Entrance Examination Rules, 2009 which regulated the admission of students in post graduate courses in private professional educational institutions and also contained provisions for fixation of fee and reservation of seats. While upholding the constitutional validity of the said Act

R. Rachaiah vs Home Secretary, Bangalore - Supreme Court Case

 R. Rachaiah vs Home Secretary, Bangalore - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 5th May, 2016, in the case of R. Rachaiah vs Home Secretary, Bangalore [Criminal Appeal No. 2375 of 2009], it was held that “Sections 216 and 217 of CrPC are mandatory in nature as they not only sub-serve the requirement of principles of natural justice but guarantee an important right which is given to the accused persons to defend themselves appropriately by giving them full opportunity. Cross-examination of the witnesses, in the process, is an important facet of this right. Credibility of any witness can be established only after the said witness is put to cross-examination by the accused person.” 

Vohra Sadikbhai Rajakbhai & Ors. vs State of Gujarat

 Vohra Sadikbhai Rajakbhai & Ors. vs State of Gujarat - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 10th May, 2016, in the case of Vohra Sadikbhai Rajakbhai & Ors. vs State of Gujarat & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 1866 of 2016], it was held that “if damage has resulted from two or three causes, namely, from an act of God as well as a negligent act of a party, the award of damages can be apportioned to compensate only the injury that can be attributed to the negligent act”

Swaraj Abhiyan Case - Supreme Court 2016 Case

 Swaraj Abhiyan – (I) vs Union of India - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 11th May, 2016, in the case of Swaraj Abhiyan – (I) vs Union of India & Ors.[Writ Petition (C) No. 857 of 2015], the Supreme Court adverted to the drought or drought-like conditions prevailing in several parts of India and issued certain directions for compliance. The Court directed the Union of India to constitute a National Disaster Response Force and also a National Disaster Mitigation Fund in terms of Sections 44 and 47 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 respectively. The Union of India was also directed to formulate a National Plan in terms of Section 11 of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 at the very earliest and with immediate concern. The Court further directed that the Drought Management Manual be revised and updated on or before 31st December, 2016.

Parag Bhati vs State of Uttar Pradesh Supreme Court 2016

 Parag Bhati (Juvenile) thrgh. Legal Guardian Mother-Smt. Rajni Bhati vs State of Uttar Pradesh - Supreme Court Important Judgment 2016 -  On 12th May, 2016, in the case of Parag Bhati (Juvenile) thrgh. Legal GuardianMother-Smt. Rajni Bhati vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. [Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 2016], it was held that the benefit of the principle of benevolent legislation attached to the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 would “apply to only such cases wherein the accused is held to be a juvenile on the basis of at least prima facie evidence regarding his minority as the benefit of the possibilities of two views in regard to the age of the alleged accused who is involved in grave and serious offence which he committed and gave effect to it in a well-planned manner reflecting his maturity of mind rather than innocence indicating that his plea of juvenility is more in the nature of a shield to dodge or dupe the arms of law, cannot be allowed to come to

Section 220 IPC in Hindi & English

 Section 220 IPC in Hindi and English Section 220 of IPC 1860:- Commitment for trial or confinement by person having authority who knows that he is acting contrary to law - Whoever, being in any office which gives him legal authority to commit persons for trial or to confinement, or to keep persons in confinement, corruptly or maliciously commits any person for trial or to confinement, or keeps any person in confinement, in the exercise of that authority, knowing that in so doing he is acting contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Case Law Related to Section 220 of Indian Penal Code 1860: Surendra Singh Rautela @ Surendra  vs State Of Bihar (Now State Of  on 27 November, 2001 Suryamoorthi And Anr. vs Govindaswamy And Ors. on 13 April, 1989 Vivek Gupta vs Central Bureau Of Investigation  on 25 September, 2003 Rizwan Ahmed Javed Shaikh

Section 219 IPC in Hindi and English

 Section 219  IPC in Hindi and English Section 219of IPC 1860:- Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making report, etc., contrary to law - Whoever, being a public servant, corruptly or maliciously makes or pronounces in any stage of a judicial proceeding, any report, order, verdict, or decision which he knows to be contrary to law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Case Law Related to Section 219 of Indian Penal Code 1860: State Of Gujarat & Anr vs Gujarat Rev.Trbl. Bar Assocn & Anr on 16 October, 2012 Sumedh Singh Saini vs The State Of Punjab on 3 December, 2020 Madras Bar Association vs Union Of India & Anr on 25 September, 2014 T. Sudhakar Prasad vs Govt. Of A.P. & Ors on 13 December, 2000 K.K. Patel And Anr vs State Of Gujarat And Anr on 12 May, 2000 K.G. Premshanker vs Inspector Of Police And Anr on 12 September,

Section 218 IPC in Hindi and English

 Section 218 IPC in Hindi and English Section 218 of IPC 1860:-Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture - Whoever, being a public servant, and being as such public servant, charged with the preparation of any record or other writing, frames that record or writing in a manner which he knows to be incorrect, with intent to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, loss or injury to the public or  to any person, or with intent thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or other charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Case Law Related to Section 218 of Indian Pe

Section 217 IPC in Hindi and English

 Section 217 IPC in Hindi and English Section 217 of IPC 1860:-Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture - Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.  Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Case Law Related to Section 217 of Indian Penal Code 1860: V. Rajaram vs State Represented By The on 26 November, 2019 R.Rachaiah vs Home Secretary, Bangalore on 4 May,

Section 216A IPC in Hindi and English

 Section 216A IPC in Hindi and English Section 216A of IPC 1860:- Penalty for harbouring robbers or dacoits - Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that any persons are about to commit or have recently committed robbery or dacoity, harbours them or any of them, with the intention of facilitating the commission of such robbery or dacoity or of screening them or any of them from punishment, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation — For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether the robbery or dacoity is intended to be committed, or has been committed, within or without India. Exception - This provision does not extend to the case in which the harbour is by the husband or wife of the offender. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Case Law Related to Section 216A of Indian Penal Code 1860: Kanta Prashad vs Delhi Administration(And ... on 6 February, 1958 State Of U. P

Section 216 IPC in Hindi and English

 Section 216 IPC in Hindi and English Section 216 of IPC 1860:-Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered - Whenever any person convicted of or charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes from such custody; or whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant, orders a certain person to be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of such escape or order for apprehension, harbours or conceals that person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended, shall be punished in the manner following, that is to say, if a capital offence - if the offence for which the person was in custody or is ordered to be apprehended is punishable with death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment - if the offence is pu

Section 215 IPC in Hindi and English

 Section 215 IPC in Hindi and English Section 215 of IPC 1860:-Taking gift to help to recover stolen property, etc. - Whoever takes or agrees or consents to take any gratification under pretence or on account of helping any person to recover any movable property of which he shall have been deprived by any offence punishable under this Code, shall, unless he uses all means in his power to cause the offender to be apprehended and convicted of the offence, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Supreme Court of India Important Judgments And Case Law Related to Section 215 of Indian Penal Code 1860: Main Pal vs State Of Haryana on 7 September, 2010 Rafiq Ahmed @ Rafi vs State Of U.P on 4 August, 2011 T. Suthenthiraraja,P vs State By D.S.P., Cbi, Sit, Chennai on 8 October, 1999 State Of Tamil Nadu Through vs Nalini And 25 Others on 11 May, 1999 S. Shanmugadivelu, S. Nalini & vs State By D.S.P., Cbi, Sit,

Section 214 IPC in Hindi and English

 Section 214 IPC in Hindi and English Section 214 of IPC 1860:-Offering gift or restoration of property in consideration of screening offender - Whoever gives or causes, or offers or agrees to give or cause, any gratification to any person, or restores or causes the restoration of any property to any person, in consideration of that person's concealing an offence, or of his screening any person from legal punishment for any offence, or of his not proceeding against any person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment; if a capital offence - shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for like, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may exte

Section 213 IPC in Hindi and English

Section 213 IPC in Hindi and English Section 213 of IPC 1860:-Taking gift, etc., to screen an offender from punishment - Whoever accepts or attempts to obtain, or agrees to accept, any gratification for himself or any other person, or any restitution of property to himself or any other person, in consideration of his concealing an offence or of his screening any person from legal punishment for any offence, or of his not proceeding against any person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment, if a capital offence - shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall a

Section 212 IPC in Hindi and English

 Section 212 IPC in Hindi and English Section 212 of IPC 1860:-Harbouring offender - Whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment;  if a capital offence - shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment - and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, and not to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may