Monthly Archives: June 2017

Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v Late Governor of Delhi and others(1974): When the legislature has spoken, the judges cannot afford to be wiser.

Case Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Late Governor of Delhi and Others, AIR 1974 SC 1868
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
BenchChief Justice AN Ray, Justice Kuttyil Kurien Mathew
Author of the judgementJustice Kuttyil Kurien Mathew
Decided On6 August, 1974
Advocate for the appellantJ. K. Jain and T. V. S. Narasimhachari
Advocate for the respondent L. N. Sinha, Solicitor General of India, S. N. Prasad, and R.N. Sachthey
AbstractIn the present case, the appellant's land was taken without giving him an opportunity of being heard. Both the single judge and the division bench of the High Court ruled in the favor of the appellant and directed the Delhi Administration to provide hearing to the appellant. Under section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act, it is necessary for the Land Collector to hear the objector and give recommendations. However, this recommendations are not binding on the government. In the present case, the collector did not hear the objector and the hearing was given to the administration directly. The division bench held that there was no need to take into consideration the recommendation of the collector and thus there is no infringement of section 5A of the Act. The Supreme Court did not agree to this and held that the provisions of the statute are mandatory to be observed.
Author of the briefAditya Gor
KeywordsNotification, Land Acquisition Act, Religious Trust, Land Collector, Natural Justice, Legislature.

(more…)

Continue Reading

State of Punjab v Major Singh AIR 1967 SC 63

CaseState of Punjab v Major Singh, AIR 1967 SC 63
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
BenchChief Justice AK Sarkar, Justice JR Mudholkar, RS Bachawat.
Author of the judgement: Chief Justice AK Sarkar, Justice Mudholkar (Concurring)
Decided on28 April 1966
Advocate for the appellantDipak Dutt Chaudhuri and R. N. Sachthey
Advocate for the respondentA. S. R. Chari
AbstractIn the present case, criminal force was applied on a child of tender age and the accused was held not guilty by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The reasoning of the High Court was that the victim was of tender age and thus her modesty could not be outraged. The Supreme Court did not accept this view and held that the modesty of the women is not subject to victim but is intended to secure the decency and morals as understood by a reasonable man.
Author of the briefAditya Gor
KeywordsCriminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Indian Penal Code, Modesty, Decency and Morals, Criminal Force

(more…)

Continue Reading

Bankey v State of Allahabad AIR 1960 ALL 131

CaseBankey v State of Allahabad, AIR 1960 All 131
CourtBefore Allahabad High Court
BenchJustice V.D. Bhargava
Decided on18 May, 1960
AbstractIn the present case, a complaint was filed against the accused who had infringed a women's modesty when there were no male members at the house. However, the accused was not successful in satisfying his immoral motives because of the presence of people in the neighborhood. There is a difference between sexual assault and rape. This difference has been explained thus, "When a person makes entry into an apartment occupied by a lady the first and foremost rational inference that can be drawn in the circumstances must be that it was with the intention of committing some offence in relation to that lady. If it is only making gestures and uttering words requesting her to agree to commit some sexual offence, or remove the petticoat or dhoti, then, in that event, it would amount only to an offence under Section 509, I. P. C., but if he proceeds further and thereafter tries forcibly to commit rape and does not stop only at intruding into the apartment and making gestures, those offences will be under Section 376 read with Section 511, I. P. C. and the last step would be when he actually Succeeds in committing rape."
Author of the briefAditya Gor
KeywordsSexual Intercourse, Sexual Assault, Rape, Indian Penal Code, Criminology.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Central Coalfields Limited & Anr V. SLL-SML(Joint venture Consortium) & Ors(2016): The party issuing the tender has the right to punctiliously and rigidly enforce the terms of the tender.

Case Central Coalfields Limited and Another V. SLL-SML(Joint venture Consortium) and Others.
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
BenchJustice Madan B. Lokur, Justice R.K. Agarwal
Author of the JudgementJustice Madan B Lokur.
Decided onAugust 17, 2016.
AbstractIn the present case, the appellants invited tenders and prescribed that the bank guarantee should be given in the specified format. The respondent SLL-SML had not adhered to the format specified and thus their bid was rejected. It was contended by the respondent SLL-SML that the format was ambiguous and vague. The division bench of the High Court allowed the appeal, which was subsequently set aside by the Supreme Court of India. According to the Supreme Court if the employer specifies a certain format then the submission should be made in that format only and no other format should be adhered to.
Author of briefAditya Gor
KeywordsBank Guarantee, Professional Responsibility, Tender, Joint Venture, Digital Signature Certificate.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Balak Ram v State of UP AIR 1974 SC 2165

CaseBalak Ram v State of UP, AIR 1974 SC 2165
CourtSupreme Court of India
BenchH.R. Khanna and Y.V. Chandrachud JJ.
Author of the judgementY.V. Chandrachud J.
Decided on 16 Aug, 1974
AbstractIn the present case, shots were fired on Triveni Ben by Balak Ram on the instruction of other persons due to the matter of political rivalry. Three dying declarations were given by the victim. The present case deals with the correctness of the evidences and dying declaration taken into consideration by the High Court. It was held by the supreme court that the High Court has erred in accepting the evidences while the view taken by the trial court was found to be correct and thus upheld.
Author of the briefKunal Rawat
KeywordsDying Declaration, Evidence, Corroboration, etc.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Sarla Mudgal v Union of India(1995): Second marriage is invalid unless and until first marriage is dissolved.

CaseSarla Mudgal v Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 1531
CourtBefore Supreme Court of India
BenchJustice Kuldip Singh and Justice R M Sahai
Author of the judgementJustice Kuldip Singh
Decided On10th May 1995
AbstractIn the present case, the court held that the second marriage would be invalid unless and until the first marriage is dissolved by decree under the Hindu marriage act. According to the factual matrix, the husband has converted himself to Muslim religion from Hindu Religion and observed polygamy. There is no punishment prescribed for such acts. But the court in the interpretation of section 494 of Indian Penal Code held that such marriages are invalid as it does not serve the purpose behind the enactment.
Author of the BriefParth Oberoi
KeywordsHindu Marriage Act, Polygamy, Monogamy, Indian Penal Code.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Hunny v State of New Delhi (2017)

CaseHunny v State of Delhi, 2017
CourtIn the High Court of Delhi
BenchHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
Decided On June 06, 2017
Advocate for the appellantMr.Tarun Khanna for Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate.
Advocate for the respondentMs.Meenakshi Dahiya, Additional Public Prosecutor.
AbstractIn the present case delivered by the High Court of Delhi, the judge has relied upon the evidence given by the victim, 5 years old, with the support of the baby doll. The High Court upheld the conviction given by the trial court. The victim was kidnapped and was sexually assaulted and slapped by the appellant. Her internal medical examination was not allowed by the victim's mother in lieu of her dignity. But the evidence collected from the brother of the victim and independent witness resulted in conviction of the appellant for the offences under Indian Penal Code and POSCO Act.
Author of the briefAditya Gor
KeywordsPOSCO, Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Sexual Assault, Kidnapping, Indian Evidence Act.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana(1979): Non-compliance with section 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act, would not render the order or notification void.

Case Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. State of Haryana (AIR 1979 SC 1149)
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India.
BenchJustice Jaswant Singh, Justice Syed Murtaza Fazalali and Justice P. S. Kailasam.
Author of the judgmentJustice Jaswant Singh
Date of the Judgment4/10/1978
Advocates for the appellantsB. Sen, A.K. Sen, J.C. Bhatt, F.S. Nariman, A.B. Diwan, I.N. Shroff and H.S. Parihar.
Advocates for the respondentD. Mukherjee, E.C. Agarwala and R.N. Sachthey.
Relevant Act/SectionsEssential Commodities Act 1955 – Section 3(6).
Author of the BriefHarshil Patel, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
KeywordsIron and Steel Control Order, Indian Penal Code, Maximum selling price, Constitution of India, Essential Commodities Act, Parliament,

(more…)

Continue Reading

Kedarnath Singh V State of Bihar(1962): Section 124A and Section 505 of the Indian Penal Code are constitutionally valid.

CaseKedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar, AIR 1962 SC 955.
CourtHon’ble The Supreme Court of India
BenchBhuvaneshwar Prasad Sinha, C.J., A.K. Sarkar, J.R. Madholkar, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar and S.K. Das, JJ.
Author of the judgmentChief Justice Bhuvaneshwar Prasad Sinha
Decided On20/01/1962
Counsel for RespondentShri C. B. Agarwala, Shri Gopal Behari.
Counsel for appellantShri Sharma
Author of the briefMayank Gupta, Student at Gujarat National Law University.
Relevant lawsSection 124-A and Section 505 of The Indian Penal Code, Constitution of India.
KeywordsSedition, Public Mischeif, Article 19(1)(a), Article 19(2).

(more…)

Continue Reading

Narayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane(1975): Five Tests laid down by the Supreme Court to identify Cruelty.

CaseNarayan Ganesh Dastane v. Sucheta Narayan Dastane, AIR 1975 1534
CourtBefore the Supreme Court of India
BenchChandrachaud, Y.V.
Goswami, P.K.
Untwalia, N.L.
Author of the JudgmentChandrachaud, Y.V.
Decided On 19/03/1975
Counsel for petitionersV.M. Tarkunde
S. Bhandare
P.H. Parekh
Manju Jaitley
Counsel for RespondentV.S. Desai
S.B. Wad
Jayashree Wad
Author of the briefAiswarya Suresh
KeywordsS. 10(1)(b) and S. 23(1), Hindu Marriage Act;
Cruelty; Burden of proof in matrimonial cases; condonation of cruelty; conditional nature of condonation of cruelty; revival of cruelty; whether sexual intercourse amounts to condonation; S. 100 and S. 103, CPC; Power of High Court; Second appeal; Section 3, Evidence Act

(more…)

Continue Reading
  • 1
  • 2
Close Menu