Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“FIR in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial and the delay in the registration of the FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for quashing of the FIR”.
“If the view of the Presiding Judge, based on the judicial record, is mechanically followed, then the discretion of the executive empowered with execution of the sentence, would be denuded of its content”.
“Dissenting opinion of arbitrators might provide useful clues during procedural issues, which forms a critical part when the hearings are challenged”.
“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”.
“While granting interim relief for continuation in service, the Court or Tribunal should, therefore, be slow and circumspect, unless prima facie evidence of unimpeachable character was produced because if the public servant succeeds, he can always be compensated. But if he fails, he would have enjoyed undeserved benefit of extended service and merely caused injustice to his immediate junior”.
“There is no prohibition to effect a partition otherwise than through an instrument in writing by duly complying with the requirement of law.”
“Scrutiny of Judicial Process by Half Truth Knowledgeable is real danger to Rule of Law” — Justice J.B. Pardiwala at ‘2nd Justice
“Sanction contemplated under Section 197 of the CrPC concerns a public servant who ‘is accused of any offence alleged to have been committed by him while acting or purporting to act in the discharge of his official duty’ whereas, the offences contemplated in the PC Act, 1988 are those which cannot be treated as acts either directly or even purportedly done in the discharge of his official duties.”
The Supreme Court said that the evidence regarding the last seen theory was totally unreliable and the evidence regarding the Call Detail Records also did not inspire any confidence.
It was notified on 06-09-2007, that provisions of Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 would extend to Medical institutions, wherein 20 or more persons are or were employed.
The Allahabad High Court upheld the Varanasi District Court’s order directing the Director, Archaeological Survey of India to undertake scientific survey/ investigation/ excavation of the Gyanvapi Mosque.
There are at least twenty-two official languages in India, and it is no doubt that people speak different languages, however, Hindi is the national language.
Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira were charged with several offences under IPC and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and they were alleged to have played an active role in recruitment of and training for cadres of the Communist Party of India (Maoist).
The Court explained that the power to special leave is an exceptional and overriding power, naturally it must be exercised sparingly and with caution and only in very exceptional situations. It will only be used to advance the cause of justice and its exercise will be governed by well-established principles.
Earlier, the Bombay High Court had denied the plea of Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira.
The Supreme Court said that due consideration must be given to the facts which are suggestive of the nature of crime, the criminal antecedents of the accused and the nature of punishment that would follow a conviction vis-à-vis the offences alleged against an accused.
The Court directed the States and Union Territories to submit their responses positively by 31-08-2023.
The Supreme Court was hearing a petition against the Varanasi District Court’s Order wherein ASI was directed to undertake scientific survey of the Gyanvapi Mosque to find out whether the same was constructed over a pre-existing structure of Hindu Temple.
The Supreme Court called the matter at hand a classic case in which a litigant had been able to mislead the Courts and authorities at different levels to put life into his stale claim.
Two Benches of the Supreme Court had expressed their disagreement with the view taken in Central Organisation for Railway Electrification v. ECI-SPIC-SMO-MCML (JV), therefore, the matter was referred to larger Bench.