Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Sexual violence against a woman should invite no tolerance, however, manipulating the system by the parties to a case under Section 376 IPC would equally need to be dealt with a stern hand and serious efforts should be made to address and remedy failings within the criminal justice system and through our society.
The Petitioner is an Arjuna Awardee and is a Commonwealth and Asian Games medalist swimmer and was also appointed swimming team coach for the 2016 Rio Paralympic Games who was suspended from participating and being sponsored in any sports event organized by Paralympic Committee of India for three years.
“Illegal confinement is a pre-condition to issue a writ of habeas corpus, it cannot be issued in respect of any and every missing person”.
The Division Bench said that the Single Judge ought to have appreciated the appellants' possession and the question of title could not have been examined.
“The purpose of certiorari is only to confine the inferior tribunals within their jurisdiction, so as to avoid the irregular exercise, or the non-exercise or the illegal assumption of it and not to correct errors of finding of fact or interpretation of law committed by them in the exercise of powers vested in them under the statute”.
“The scope of writ jurisdiction cannot be allowed to trounce the statutory obligation, on the stratagem of efficacious alternate remedy.”
“The writ petition, while initially deemed maintainable, has since become non-maintainable due to the privatization of Air India Limited. This development has rendered it beyond this Court’s jurisdiction to issue any writ, order, or direction against the respondents.”
“When the position of law is almost identical everywhere in the other States and when the benefit of Annual Increment is given to such employees, then denial of such benefits to the petitioners would amount to violation of their right of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution.”
The Court applied the doctrine of harmonious construction and observed that granting of parole would not amount to any intervention in pending proceedings before Supreme Court under Section 389 of CrPC
Jharkhand High Court commented that the State Police’s lackadaisical attitude to arrest anyone and put him in custody made the petitioner suffer humiliation, who was having a bright career and completed SSC exam.
‘It is unfortunate to notice that a trend has been set to file applications under Article 226 of the Constitution at the drop of hat. Numerous cases has been filled with imaginary and very trivial causes of action. The court is of the opinion that such trend should be nipped in the bud and filling of writ petition of this nature has to be discouraged.’
“Person who does not do equity with others and even to the life companion, cannot approach the Court to seek approval of his relation under the umbrella of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
“The prime concern and endeavour of law should be to secure justice on the basis of truth, which ought to be unearthed through a committed and competent investigating agency.” observes the Court.
The writ court should not exercise its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution which will obstruct contractual rights between the parties.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that no document needs to be provided for registering an application under S. 17 of the SARFAESI Act, when the same is not a condition precedent required under the said Section.
Madhya Pradesh High Court held that all authorities while discharging public duties or performing judicial/quasi-judicial functions must be think about Justice and that every “FILE” carries a “LIFE”.
The entire trajectory of this case must be deprecated. When a principle challenge against the termination fails and while an appeal is pending, one distress warrant is challenged in Delhi only to be allegedly later withdrawn and other distress warrants are now brought before this Court.
Kerala High Court dismissed a petition seeking setting aside of sale of property conducted in violation of SARFAESI Rules, and saidthat the relief sought is within the scope of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, and not Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The Delhi High Court held that a borrower cannot ask for alteration of contract by way of a writ petition and a contract can only be altered through mutual consent between the parties.
Manipur High Court: In a writ petition filed challenging the compensation awarded by the Lower Court, the division bench of