Month: April 2023

Service Matters

By the very nature of the science that they practice and with the advancement of science and modern medical technology, the emergency duty that Allopathy doctors are capable of performing and the trauma care that they are capable of providing, cannot be performed by Ayurved doctors – both categories of doctors are certainly not performing equal work to be entitled to equal pay

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF GUJARAT AND OTHERS ETC. — Appellant Vs. DR. P. A. BHATT AND OTHERS ETC. — Respondent ( Before : V. Ramasubramanian and…

Right of default bail under Section 167(2) of the CrPC is not merely a statutory right, but a fundamental right that flows from Article 21 of the Constitution of India – During the pendency of the investigation, supplementary chargesheets were filed by the Investigation Agency just before the expiry of 60 days – Interim order of bail is upheld.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RITU CHHABARIA — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Krishna Murari and C. T. Ravikumar, JJ. ) Writ…

HELD in the nature of the transaction, and what was actually sold by the Official Liquidator, plant and machinery, such as would answer the description of immovable property, must also be found part of the property for the purpose of the stamp duty and other charges as per law.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE SUB REGISTRAR, AMUDALAVALASA AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. M/S DANKUNI STEELS LTD. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : K.M. Joseph and Hrishikesh…

N D P S Act, 1985 – Section 8(c) read with Sections 21(c), 27A, 28 and Section 29 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 25 – Confessional statements were made by the accused to an police officer empowered under Section 53 of the NDPS Act and hence, bar of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, the confessional statements will have to be kept out of consideration – Prosecution has not proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH BOTHILAL — Appellant Vs. THE INTELLIGENCE OFFICER NARCOTICS CONTROL BUREAU — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal…

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(ia) – Divorce – Relationship must end as its continuation is causing cruelty on both the sides – Long separation and absence of cohabitation and the complete breakdown of all meaningful bonds and the existing bitterness between the two, has to be read as cruelty under Section 13(1) (ia) of the 1955 Act

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SHRI RAKESH RAMAN — Appellant Vs. SMT. KAVITA — Respondent ( Before : Sudhanshu Dhulia and J. B. Pardiwala, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

NDPS – Appellant has been convicted merely on the ground that he was the registered owner of the truck – Primary error committed by the Courts below while convicting the Appellant is that the onus is sought to be shifted on him to prove his innocence without the foundational facts having been proved by the prosecution – Hence, the conviction of the Appellant cannot be legally sustained.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH HARBHAJAN SINGH — Appellant Vs. STATE OF HARYANA — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

You missed

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 120(b), 153(A) and 153(AA) – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18(B), 38 and 39 – The case involves the Popular Front of India (PFI), an extremist Islamic organization accused of spreading extremist ideology, committing terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, and recruiting members in Tamil Nadu – The central issue is whether the respondents, accused of serious offenses under the IPC and UAPA, should be granted bail – The Union of India, represented by NIA, argues that the High Court failed to appreciate the gravity of the offenses and the prima facie evidence against the respondents – The defence contends that the allegations are vague and the evidence, particularly the statements of protected witnesses, is unreliable – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order granting bail, emphasizing the seriousness of the offenses and the sufficiency of prima facie evidence – The Court found that the High Court did not properly consider the material evidence and recorded perverse findings regarding the involvement of the respondents in the alleged offences – The Court relied on the provisions of the UAPA and past judgments to establish the standards for granting bail in cases involving terrorism – The Supreme Court concluded that the respondents should not be released on bail, given the reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against them are prima facie true and the potential threat to national security.