Month: August 2022

Prosecution for offences against the State and for criminal conspiracy – Words “No Court shall take cognizance” employed in Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the consequential bar created under the said provision would undoubtedly show that the bar is against ‘taking of cognizance by the Court’ and not against registration of a crime or investigation

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH PARVEZ PARWAZ AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : N.V. Ramana, CJI., Hima Kohli and…

Service Matters

HELD to exempt M. Phil. / Ph.D. holders from qualifying in the NET was perhaps premised on the understanding that such a doctorate in one’s chosen subject, involving years of study, would render a greater understanding of the subject compared to most other candidates taking the NET who have only obtained a Master’s degree. Such qualification (M. Phil. or Ph. D.) is undoubtedly awarded for a proven proficiency of the candidate in the concerned subject or discipline

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH UNIVERSITY OF KERALA AND OTHERS ETC. — Appellant Vs. MERLIN J.N. AND ANOTHER ETC. ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, S.…

(CPC) – Order 7 Rule 11 – Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A – Rejection of Plaint – Pre-Institution Mediation and Settlement – Section 12A of the Act is mandatory – Any suit instituted violating the mandate of Section 12A must be visited with rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 – This power can be exercised even suo moto by the court – Section 12A cannot be described as a mere procedural law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH M/S. PATIL AUTOMATION PRIVATE LIMITED AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. RAKHEJA ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy,…

(CrPC) – Section 311 – Power to summon – Section 311 provides that the Court may summon any person as a witness or to examine any person in attendance, though not summoned as a witness and Recall and re-examine any person who has already been examined – This power can be exercised at any stage of any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under the CrPC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH VARSHA GARG — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud and AS Bopanna,…

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.