Month: November 2020

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 – There are no pleadings by the public servants with regard to the prejudice caused to them on account of non-obtaining of prior consent under Section 6 of the DSPE Act qua them specifically in addition to the general consent in force, nor with regard to miscarriage of justice – No reason to interfere with the finding

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH M/S FERTICO MARKETING AND INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS ETC. — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before…

(CPC) – Section 100 – HELD Formulation of substantial question of law or reformulation of the same in terms of the proviso arises only if there are some questions of law and not in the absence of any substantial question of law – High Court is not obliged to frame substantial question of law

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH KIRPA RAM (DECEASED) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SURENDRA DEO GAUR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao,…

Misbranded drugs – Feeble attempt to show compliance with Drugs Act by alleged purchase of the samples under Form 14A to the counter affidavit from an unknown source and date must be rejected outright as an attempt to create evidence where none exists – High Court therefore erred in dismissing the writ petition on grounds of delay – Appeal allowed

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH VETINDIA PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : R.F. Nariman, Navin Sinha and Krishna Murari,…

Food Adulteration – Complaint filed against Directors of the Company – Held Therefore, in the absence of the Company, the Nominated Person cannot be convicted or vice versa -to convict the Company renders the entire conviction of the Nominated Person as unsustainable – Complaint dismissed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LIMITED — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao, Hemant Gupta and Ajay Rastogi,…

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.