Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Governor’s failure to consult the Commission as envisaged in Rule 10 of Sikkim Government Servants’ (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1985, while passing the order modifying the penalty, alone would not change the nature of the case.
The amendments were imperative for the proper and effective adjudication of the dispute; refusal to allow the amendment application would have caused injustice or resulted in multiple litigations; and the amendments did not constitutionally or fundamentally change the nature of the case.
Read July’s share of criminal law discussions at the Supreme Court and various High Courts
The impugned judgment of the Sessions Court had observed that if a court finds that the testimony of a prosecutrix inspires the confidence of the court and is found reliable and trustworthy, then the court can rely on her sole testimony for convicting the accused and need not look for corroboration of her testimony elsewhere.
The Court decided under the aegis of Or.14, R.2 of the CPC that where a question of law is dependent on the determination of a question of fact, then such question of fact cannot be decided as a preliminary issue by the Trial Court.
In August 2021, Justice J.K. Maheshwari became the first Chief Justice from Sikkim High Court to be elevated to the Supreme Court and has served as Chief Justice of two High Courts, Andhra Pradesh and Sikkim High Courts.
The Court referred to National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Balakrishnan, wherein the Supreme Court had distinguished between a Comprehensive/Package Policy and Act Policy by stating that an Act Policy cannot cover a third-party risk of an occupant in a car, but a Comprehensive/Package Policy would cover such risk.
Sikkim High Court opined that the prosecution’s case was established beyond all reasonable doubt following which they found no reason to differ from the findings of the Trial Court
The Court noted that the appellant had accepted the award of all other claims except the one disputed, therefore they could not seek the setting aside of only the disputed claims as it would amount to seeking modification of the Award.
The Court was of the view that both, the applicant in viewing the requirement of filing the appeal within six months as per S. 378(5) CrPC; and the respondents contending that the appeal should have been filed within sixty days as per S. 378(5), were equally incorrect.
The Court discussed the difference between a gratuitous passenger travelling in a private vehicle that met with an accident, and the deceased wife of the insured in the instant case who was held to be covered as a “third party”. The distinction proved to be elemental in granting “just compensation” to the appellants.
The Court held that Glenmark Pharma should have followed the prescribed procedure while seeking the grant of budgetary support, and not work out a different procedure for the authorities to follow.
The Court said that the prosecution evidence must establish that the accused was the perpetrator of the offence and no one else.
The Court found that all the documentary evidence proved his DOB. The Court, however, upheld the conviction under POCSO and given the convicts minority, he was set at liberty having already served 3 years of his sentence.
The Court stated that, while it is important that litigants including the State, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered even- handedly; however, a little latitude is considered by the Courts when the State is the seeking condonation of delay.
The Court held that the Sikkim Government Pension Rules do not prohibit the revisionist from entering into a compromise deed with the respondent, therefore, the former is bound by the deed.
Justice Biswanath Somadder’s journey, spanning decades, reflects a distinguished career that extends from practicing law in the High Court at Calcutta to assuming the prestigious role of Chief Justice in various High Courts across India.
“Budgetary Support Scheme is limited to the tax which accrued to the Central Government under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and the Integrated Goods and Services Act 2017, after devolution of the Central Tax or the Integrated Tax to the States.”
“By filing a petition under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 although the objector is not a party to the arbitral proceedings, he can seek and obtain relief if the award has not been given fairly.”
“The authorities are best judges to maintain the discipline of the Force. Unless gross violation of natural justice or perversity in the quantum of punishment compared to the quantum specified is seen, it will not be wise to interfere in writ jurisdiction although the power of this Court is sufficiently wide to root out any illegality wherever found.”