Latest Post

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) — Section 223(d) — Persons accused of different offences committed in the course of the same transaction may be charged and tried together — Legislative intent is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings, avoid conflicting judgments, and promote judicial economy while ensuring fairness — Segregation without legally recognized grounds like distinct facts, severable evidence, or demonstrated prejudice, is impermissible. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 474 read with Section 34 — Offences relating to cheating and forgery — Anticipatory bail — Rejection challenged — Appellants, public servants at the time, accused of certifying mutation entries based on forged documents — High Court rejected anticipatory bail — Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s decision Waqf Act, 1995 (as amended) — Challenge to constitutional validity of amendments — Petitioners contended that amendments are ultra vires the Constitution, violating fundamental rights including Articles 14, 15, 19, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30 and 300A. Respondents argued for legislative competence and presumption of validity of enactments. Court emphasized that statutes should only be declared unconstitutional if there is a clear, glaring, and undeniable violation of constitutional principles or fundamental rights, or if manifestly arbitrary, and that courts must strive to uphold legislative validity. Consumer Protection Act, 1986 — Section 25 — Enforcement of orders — Pre-2002 amendment and post-2019 Act, all orders could be enforced as decrees. The period between 15.03.2003 to 20.07.2020 saw an anomaly where only interim orders (and monetary recovery) were clearly enforceable under Section 25, leaving final non-monetary orders in a gap. Interpretation of Statutes — Casus omissus — Court can fill gaps in legislation using interpretative tools like purposive construction when literal interpretation leads to absurdity or defeats the object of the Act, especially for remedial legislation like the Consumer Act. Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 14, 39(d) and 43 — Equal pay for equal work — Contractual Assistant Professors performing identical duties as regularly appointed or ad-hoc Assistant Professors are entitled to the minimum pay scale of Assistant Professors.

Medical Negligence—Post surgery ailments—Patient was not able to prove that the ailments which she suffered after she returned from the hospital were result of faulty surgery (removal of Gall Bladder) by the doctor and such aliments were not normal post surgery effect-Complaint dismissed.

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2772 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1611 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vineet Saran Civil Appeal No.3971…

Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S. 4 and S.3(c)–Issuance of Notification-­Delegation of authority—State is empowered to appoint any officer other than a Collector or Deputy Commissioner to act as Collector—Such officer is empowered to extent of purpose mentioned in notification designating him as Collector—But relying upon same notification the designated officer cannot act as Collector in respect of other acquisition proceedings-Impugned notification u/s 4 issued by designated officer without being empowered for that is set aside.

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2767 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1610 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before           Hon’ble Mr. Justice Madan B. Lokur Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta Civil Appeal…

In present case, investigation was not conducted by rank of police officer as directed by High Court-On this ground charge  sheet was returned—Since, on 90th day there was no charge sheet before Magistrate to assess the situation and subsequent filing of charge sheet even after two days would be of no consequence-­Accused held entitled to default bail—Bail granted.

2018(4) Law Herald (SC) 2758 : 2018 LawHerald.Org 1609 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre                            Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday Umesh Lalit Criminal Appeal…

Dishonour of cheque–Vicarious liability–Offences by companies–Liability arises from being in-charge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company at the relevant time when the offence was committed and not on the basis of merely holding a designation or office in a company– Responsibility is on the complainant to make specific averments as are required under the law in the complaint so as to make the accused vicariously liable . Dishonour of cheque–Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved and not inferred.

2010(2) LAW HERALD (SC) 737 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Sathasivam The Hon’ble Mr. Justice H.L. Dattu Criminal Appeal Nos. 320-336 of 2010…

Evidence Act, 1872, S. 35–Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Act, 2000, S. 68–Juvenile Justice (Care & Protection of Children) Rules 2001, R. 22–Age of Juvenile–Determination of age–An entry in a school register may not be a public document and, thus, must be proved in accordance with law–Medical opinion rendered in this case corroborates the entry made in the Admission register of the school ,having been proved in accordance with law, no reason as to why the same should not be taken into consideration–No infirmity in the order passed by the High Court.                                                    

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 732 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Cyriac Joseph Criminal Appeal No. 909 of 2009…

Service Matters

Appeal for enhancement of compensation–No submission made against the order of the High Court denying liberalised pension, hence not interfered with–Earnings of the deceased were a source of sustenance for the family–Besides, loss of a son at such a young age creates a void in the family, which cannot be filed up by making payment of any compensation–SC enhanced  the amount to Rs. 2 lakhs.  

2010(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 729 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar The Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma Civil Appeal No. 140 of 2010…

You missed