Month: November 2018

Allegations that the petitioners had been beaten or an attempt had been made to extort money from them or anyone else has been denied–These prayers cannot be permitted to be raised in a writ petition directly in the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution–No violation of basic requirement as laid down in case D.K. Basu supra were infringed–Show cause notices issued to the respondents dropped.

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 576 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 17…

Reservation in Panchayats–Panchayats located in Scheduled Areas, the exclusive representation of Scheduled Tribes in the Chairperson positions of the same bodies at all three tiers is constitutionally permissible–Sections 17(B)(2), 36(B)(2) and 51(B)(2) of the Jharkhand Panchayat Reservation Act, 2001 are constitutionally valid provisions.

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 558 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Chief Justice K.G. Balakrishnan The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M.…

Dying declaration– Once the court is satisfied that the declaration was true and voluntary undoubtedly, it can base its conviction without any further corroboration–It cannot be laid down as an absolute rule of law that the dying declaration cannot form the sole basis of conviction unless it is corroborated.

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 545 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Asok Kumar Ganguly Criminal Appeal No. 966 of…

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 167(2)–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 309–Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S. 173(8)–Investigation–Investigation and re-investigation stand on different footing–Investigation into an offence completed by Police Challan submitted–Superior can order further investigation and not re-investigation–Court cannot give custody of accused to new agent for custodial interrogation.  

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 521 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Criminal Appeal No. 941 of 2009…

Rape on a minor girl–Defence that they were falsely implicated due to enmity–Alleged dispute over a common wall was not of such a grave nature compeling the entire family of the prosecutrix to go to the extent of the putting at stake its reputation and fair name of a young girl child to settle the scores with the accused.

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 538 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice B. Sudershan Reddy The Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.M. Panchal Criminal Appeal Nos. 70-72 of…

Accident–Liability of insurance company–Death of a person travelling in a private car–Whether the insurance policy covered the risk of the passenger travelling in the car–Such person indisputably would come within the purview of the liability to third party–There being no limitation with regard to coverage, in terms of the provisions of the Act, no upper limit is fixed–Liability of the insurer, thus unlike the old Act, may not be limited–Matter requires consideration by a Larger Bench

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 513 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Mukundakam Sharma Civil Appeal No. 3335 of…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.