Month: September 2023

An order of detention under section 3(1) of the Act can only be issued against a detenu to prevent him “from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order”. “Public order” is defined in the Explanation to section 2(a) of the Act as encompassing situations that cause “harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave wide-spread danger to life or public health” – Order of detention quashed.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AMEENA BEGUM — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Surya Kant and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal…

It can be seen that 39 years have passed since the date of offence and both the other accused persons have come to be acquitted – There are no criminal antecedents of accused-appellant that have been brought on record – Further, from the record, it cannot be said that the accused-appellant acted in a premeditated manner, whatsoever – Sentence reduced to 3 years from 5 years

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PRAMOD KUMAR MISHRA — Appellant Vs. THE STATE OF U.P. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, JJ. ) Criminal…

Dispute over the allocation of a residential plot to Mr. ‘K’ and subsequent attempts to cancel the sale deed – Arbitration -‘K’ successors challenged this decision in a writ petition, and the High Court ruled in their favor, finding that the society had failed to provide evidence of the alleged violations – The society appealed this decision, but this Court concluded that their appeal lacked merit and dismissed it.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PURUSHOTTAM BAGH SAHKARI AWAS SAMITI LTD. — Appellant Vs. SRI SHOBHAN PAL SINGH AND ANOTHER ETC. — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka…

Service Matters

Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Offices Ministerial Group “C” Posts of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001 – Rule 5 – An affidavit revealed vacancies, and in light of this, This Court directed the promotion of four candidates based on their education qualifications – This decision was not to set a precedent, and the appeal was allowed without any cost orders.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH RAJENDRA PRASAD AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Abhay S. Oka and Rajesh Bindal,…

Section 162 of the CrPC which prevents a Trial Judge from independently examining the contents of a chargesheet suo motu and himself using the statement of a person examined by the police recorded therein for the purpose of contradicting such person when he gives evidence in favour of the State as a prosecution witness

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH MUNNA PANDEY — Appellant Vs. STATE OF BIHAR — Respondent ( Before : B.R. Gavai, J.B. Pardiwala and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. ) Criminal…

Service Matters

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in order to do complete justice, the appellant will be entitled to all the service benefits including seniority, consequential promotions and pensionary benefits at par with his juniors, though notionally, since he superannuated on 30.06.2007 and has not worked on the promoted post.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH L.R. PATIL — Appellant Vs. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY, GULBARGA — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 3254…

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Section 6 – Devolution of interest in coparcenary property – In order to ascertain the shares of the heirs in the property of a deceased coparcener, the first step is to ascertain the share of the deceased himself in the coparcenary property and Explanation 1 to Section 6 provides a fictional expedient, namely, that his share is deemed to be the share in the property that would have been allotted to him if a partition had taken place immediately before his death

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH DERHA — Appellant Vs. VISHAL AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No. 4494 of…

Service Matters

Scientific and Technical Group “A” (Gazetted) posts in the Ministry of Information Technology (in-situ Promotion under Flexible Complementing Scheme) Rules, 1998 – Rule 4(b) – For striking down the provisions of law or for declaring any rules as ultra vires, specific pleading to challenge the rules and asking of such relief ought to be made.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. MANJURANI ROUTRAY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. )…

NEET PG – Rejection of candidature to Post Graduate Medical Seat – Petitioner is a U.S. National holds an Overseas Citizen of India card by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) – Eligibility to claim the benefit of Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) card holder is undeniable – Rejection of her candidature is not supportable in law

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PALLAVI — Appellant Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : S. Ravindra Bhat and Aravind Kumar, JJ. ) Writ Petition…

You missed

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.