Court On Its Own Motion Through Mr Ajay Chaudhary Vs state

Hon’ble Delhi High Court on 22.12.10 observed as under

"Whether an accused is entitled to a copy of the First Information Report after it is lodged and if so, what steps are required to be taken to facilitate its availability..


Be it noted, lodging of FIR, launching of criminal prosecution, investigation, facilitation of the trial by enabling the accused to defend himself and speedy trial are the sacred pillars of dispensation of the criminal justice system…

Once an FIR is lodged and the conditions precedent are satisfied, it is the statutory duty of the police to investigate a cognizable offence and in case it is not investigated, the informant can take recourse to other modes as provided under the Cr.P.C….

FIR is a public document as defined under Section 74 of the Evidence Act…

Conclusions and the directions as enumerated below:

(A) An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

(B) An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in a criminal case and his name may be finding place in a First Information Report can submit an application through his representative / agent / parokar for grant of a certified copy before the concerned police officer or to the Superintendent of Police on payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a copy from the court. On such application being made, the copy shall be supplied within twenty-four hours.

(C) Once the First Information Report is forwarded by the police station to the concerned Magistrate or any Special Judge, on an application being filed for certified copy on behalf of the accused, the same shall be given by the court concerned within two working days. The aforesaid direction has nothing to do with the statutory mandate inhered under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

(D) The copies of the FIR, unless reasons recorded regard being had to the nature of the offence that the same is sensitive in nature, should be uploaded on the Delhi Police website within twenty-four hours of lodging of the FIR so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the court as per law for redressal of his grievances.

(E) The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website of Delhi Police shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Commissioner of Police and that too by way of a speaking order. A decision so taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Police shall also be duly communicated to the Area magistrate.

(F) The word sensitive' apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy regard being had to the nature of the FIR.

(G) In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person grieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation with the Commissioner of Police who shall constitute a committee of three high officers and the committee shall deal with the said grievance within three days from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to the grieved person.

(H) The Commissioner of Police shall constitute the committee within eight weeks from today.

(I) In cases wherein decisions have been taken not to give copies of the FIR regard being had to the sensitive nature of the case, it will be open to the accused / his authorized representative / parokar to file an application for grant of certified copy before the court to which the FIR has been sent and the same shall be provided in quite promptitude by the concerned court not beyond three days of the submission of the application.

(J) The directions for uploading the FIR on the website of the Delhi Police shall be given effect from 1st February, 2011."

Police vs. prosecution

Police vs. prosecution: "Fights between public prosecutors and police officers over investigative power have long ceased to be news here.

Still the tit-for-tat between the nation’s top law enforcement officials went way too far Thursday. Hours after the nation’s top police officer ordered his men to ``stake their claims” on defending investigative rights, some prosecutors described the remark as befitting a Mafia boss. When it comes to a turf war, these officials seem to be little better than the targets of their crackdowns."

Ramesh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618

IPC- sec 306 - abetment to suicide - husband said "you are free to do whatever you wish and go wherever you like" - Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under "Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect. or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. the present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation.."

Chnnappa Andanappa Siddareddy and others Vs State, 1980 CrlJ 1022

“The FIR being a record of the acts of the public officers prepared in discharge of the official duty is such a public document as defined under Section 74 of the Evidence Act. Under Section 76 of the Evidence Act, every public officer having the custody of a public document, which any person has a right to inspect is bound to give such person on demand a copy of it on payment of the legal fees therefor.”

The Hindu : News : Planning Commission's definition of BPL a mockery, says CPI(M)

The Hindu : News : Planning Commission's definition of BPL a mockery, says CPI(M): "Planning Commission's claim that a daily expenditure of Rs. 20 on essential requirements for those living in urban areas and Rs.15 for those in the rural India was enough to keep them out of poverty."

Associated Hotels of India Ltd Vs R N Kapoor AIR 1959 SC 1262

 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India this Court observed the difference between a lease and licence as under"There is a marked distinction between a lease and a licence. Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act defines a lease of immovable property as a transfer of a right to enjoy such property made for a certain time in consideration for a price paid or promised. Under Section 108 of the said Act, the lessee is entitled to be put in possession of the property. A lease is therefore a transfer of an interest in land. The interest transferred is called the leasehold interest. The lessor parts with his right to enjoy the property during the term of the lease, and it follows from it that the lessee gets that right to the exclusion of the lessorThe result of all these cases is that, although a person who is let into exclusive possession is, prima facie, to be considered to be tenant, nevertheless he will not be held to be so if the circumstances negative any intention to create a tenancy....

The following propositions may, therefore, be taken as well-established : (1) To ascertain whether a document creates a licence or lease, the substance of the document must be preferred to the form; (2) the real test is the intention of the parties - whether they intended to create a lease or a licence; (3) if the document creates an interest in the property, it is a lease; but, if it only permits another to make use of the property, of which the legal possession continues with the owner, it is a licence; and (4) if under the document a party gets exclusive possession of the property, prima facie, he is considered to be a tenant; but circumstances may be established which negative the intention to create a lease..."

Mangalorean.Com- Serving Mangaloreans Around The World!

Mangalorean.Com- Serving Mangaloreans Around The World!: "'The judge in the court has certain personality and his conduct must be exemplary in all respect and aberration (in the personality) would make him liable for being proceeded against,' said the apex court bench of Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice Chandramauli Kumar Prasad."

M Mohan Vs State Tr Dy Supdt Of Police

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed on 01.03.11 as under

The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide.

Move to expedite justice delivery - The Times of India

Move to expedite justice delivery - The Times of India: "The new state litigation policy will outline the manner in which public prosecutors should be appointed and also how the government lawyers need to conduct in the court to derive speedy justice, the minister said."

In C.M Beena Vs PN Ramachandra Rao 2004 (3) SCC 595

 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India explained a Licence as under

"Only a right to use the property in a particular way or under certain terms given to the occupant while the owner retains the control or possession over the premises results in a licence being created; for the owner retains legal possession while all that the licensee gets is a permission to use the premises for a particular purpose or in a particular manner and but for the permission so given the occupation would have been unlawful."

Welcome to Law et al. News, India's First Comprehensive and Inclusive Legal News Portal. We are a pan India legal news network covering legal news and events.

Welcome to Law et al. News, India's First Comprehensive and Inclusive Legal News Portal. We are a pan India legal news network covering legal news and events.

Bharat Petroleum Corp.Ltd Vs Chembur Service Station on 2 March, 2011 SC

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed on 02.03.11 on the point of lease and licences as under

"Licences can be of different kinds. Some licences with reference to use of immovable property may be very wide, virtually bordering upon leases. Some licences can be very very narrow, giving a mere right enabling a person to visit a premises - say a museum or a lecture hall or an exhibition. In between are the licences of different hues and degrees. All licences can not be treated on the same footing. We may refer to some illustrations to highlight the difference.

Illustration (A): An owner of a property enters into a lease thereof, but to avoid the rigours of Rent Control legislation, calls it as a licence agreement. Though such a lease is captioned as a `licence agreement', the terms thereof show that it is in essence, a lease. Such a licence agreement which puts the licensee in exclusive possession of the premises, untrammeled by any control, and free from any directions from the licensor (instead of conferring only a bare personal privilege to use the premises) will be a lease, even if described as licence. For example, if the exclusive possession of an apartment or a flat or a shop is delivered by the owner for a monthly consideration without retaining any manner of control, it will be a lease irrespective of whether the arrangement is called by the owner as a `lease', or `licence'. As far as the person who is let into exclusive possession, the quality and nature of his rights in respect of the premises will be that of a lease or a tenant and not that of a licensee. Obviously such a `licensee' cannot be `evicted' or `dispossessed' or prevented from using the premises without initiating legal action in accordance with law.
Illustration (B): The owner of a land constructs a shopping mall with hundred shops. The owner of the mall earmarks different shops for different purposes, that is sale of different types of goods/merchandise, that is shops for exclusive clothing for men, shops for exclusive clothing for women, shops for hosieries, shops for watches, shops for cameras, shops for shoes, shops for cosmetics and perfumes, shops for watches, shops for sports goods, shops for electronic goods, shops for books, shops for snacks and drinks etc. The mall owner grants licences in regard to individual shops to licensees to carry on the identified or earmarked siness. The licensor controls the hours of business, regulates the maintenance, manner of display, cleanliness in the shops. The ingress and egress to the shop licensed to the licensee is through the corridors in the mall leading from three or four common access points/entrances which are under the control of the licensor. The licensee is however entitled to stock the shop with brands of his choice though he does not have the right to change the earmarked purpose, entertain any clientale or customers of his choice and fix the prices/terms for his goods. He can also lock the shop at the end of the business hours and open it whenever he wants. No one else can trade in that shop. In such a case, in spite of the restrictions, controls and directions of the licensor, and in spite of the grant being described as licence, the transaction will be a lease or tenancy and the licensee cannot be dispossessed or evicted except by recourse of law.
Illustration (C): In a shopping complex or in a mall the owner gives a licence to a person to use a counter to sell his goods in consideration of a fee. The access is controlled by the licensor and there is no exclusive use of any specific space by the licensee. At the end of the day, the licensee can close the counter. The space around the counter is visited and used by customers to the mall and not exclusively by the customers of the licensee. In such a case, if the licence is terminated, the licensor can effectively prevent the licensee from entering upon his premises and the licensee will have no right to use the counter except to remove his belongings. In such a licence it may not be necessary for the licensor to sue the licensee for `possession' or `eviction'.
Illustration (D): A much narrower version of a licence is where an exhibitor of cinematograph films, or a theatre owner permits a `customer' or `guest' to visit an entertainment hall to view and enjoy a movie or a show for the price of a ticket. The licensee is permitted to occupy a seat in the theatre exclusively for the period of the show. Or a cloakroom with toilet facilities in a public building permits a visitor to use the toilet/closet facilities on payment of a fee. The licensee is permitted to use the toilet/closet exclusively to relieve himself. In such cases, the licence is for a specific purpose and for a specific period. The licensee has no other right to enter the premises, nor the right to continue to occupy the seat in the theatre or use the toilet/closet continuously. Such a licensee can be forcibly removed by the licensor if the licensee overstays or continues to occupy the seat beyond the show, or refuses to leave the cloakroom. It is not necessary for the licensor to sue the licensee.
Illustration (E): A reputed manufacturer of textiles owns several retail outlets in different parts of the country. The outlets are housed in premises owned by the manufacturer or premises taken by it on lease. The manufacturer employs a sales manager on salary for each outlet to manage the outlet and sell its products and entrust him with the keys of the premises, so that he can open the outlet for business and close the outlet at the end of the day. Or the manufacturer, instead of engaging a sales manager, appoints an agent who is permitted to sell only the products of the manufacturer in the retail outlet, and receive a commission on the turnover of sales. The manufacturer stipulates the manner of sale, and the terms of sale including the prices at which the goods are sold. The manufacturer also checks the products sold periodically to ensure that only its products (and not fakes) are sold. The manufacturer also reserves the right to terminate the services of the sales manager/agent. In such cases on termination of the services of the employee/agent, the manufacturer can physically prevent the sales manager/agent from entering the retail outlet and make alternative arrangements for running the outlet. There is no need to approach a court to `evict' the sales manager/agent.

Where an employer or principal permits the use of its premises, by its employee or agent, such use, whether loosely referred to as `possession' or `occupation' or `use' by the employee or the agent, is on behalf of the employer/principal. In other words, the employer/principal continues to be in possession and occupation and the employee/agent is merely a licensee who is permitted to enter the premises for the limited purpose of selling the goods of the employer/principle. The employee/agent cannot claim any `possession' or `occupation' or `right to use' independent of the employer/principal who is the licensor. In such cases if the employee is terminated from service, he cannot obviously contend that he is in "occupation" of the premises and that he can be evicted or dispossessed only by initiating action in a court of law. Similarly the agent who is permitted to enter the premises every day to sell the goods cannot, on termination of the agency, contend that he continues to be in exclusive occupation of the premises and unless evicted through a court of law entitled to continue in occupation. This is because licence that is granted to the employee/agent is a limited licence to enter upon and use the premises, not for his own purposes or his own business, but for the purposes of the employer/principal, to sell its goods in the manner prescribed by the employer/principal and subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the contract of employment/agency in regard to the manner of sales, the prices at which the goods are to be sold or the services to be rendered to the customers. In such cases, when the employment or agency is terminated and the employer/principal informs the employee/agent that his services are no longer required and he is no longer the employee/agent, the licence granted to such employee/agent to enter the retail outlet stands revoked and the ex- employee/ex-agent ceases to have any right to enter the premises. On the other hand, the employer/principal who continues to have possession will be entitled to enter the premises, or appoint another employee or agent, or legitimately prevent the ex-employee/ex-agent from entering upon the premises or using the premises. In such cases, there is no need for the licensor (that is the employer or the principal) to file a suit for eviction or injunction against the ex-employee or ex-agent. The licensor can protect or defend its possession and physically prevent the licensee (employee/agent) from entering the outlet. "

Motion of the Day: No Law Against Having Big-Breasted Colleagues « Above the Law: A Legal Tabloid - News and Colorful Commentary on Law Firms and the Legal Profession

Motion of the Day: No Law Against Having Big-Breasted Colleagues « Above the Law: A Legal Tabloid - News and Colorful Commentary on Law Firms and the Legal Profession

Ex.Constable Shiv ... Vs Union Of India & Ors on 1 March, 2011 Delhi High Court

A customary divorce took place when a panchayati decision was arrived at requiring the petitioner to pay alimony to Kalo Devi. Both of them remarriages somewhere else without formal decree of Court. Departmental action was taken against appellant for second marriage. Proceeding quashed.
Hon'ble Court observed, "Another instance of conflict between India and Bharat. The social norms in Rural India are not accepting the changes which the legislature intends to bring. Hindu Marriage Act 1955! It is observed more in breach rather than in compliance in rural areas. The reason appears to be that the rural society is not in sync with the modern ethos which the city bred propagates...

Suffice would it be to state that intention plays a very important part in every wrong. Needless to state an act becomes a wrong if backed with the requisite intention. Lacking an intention, an act would not be an offence."

Susan Leigh Beer Vs India Tourism Development ... on 3 March, 2011 Delhi High Court

This is case for compensation of Rs 20000000 for the negligence of Hotel. Court allow compensation of Rs 18200000 with interest @ 6% from filing the suit and 10% for future till payment.

JURIST - Paper Chase: Pakistan court restrains president from political activities

JURIST - Paper Chase: Pakistan court restrains president from political activities

Osama bin Laden terrorism law: U.S. justified in killing Osama Bin Laden - latimes.com

Osama bin Laden terrorism law: U.S. justified in killing Osama Bin Laden - latimes.com: "International lawyers today see the law of war as 'humanitarian law.' That's what they call it. They see the waving of a white flag as the exercise of a human right. This is moral and legal confusion. Surrender isn't a human right. It's a privilege of lawful combat. Terrorists don't lose all legal protections — for example, they can't be sadistically tortured, even if they torture their prisoners — but they forfeit the special rights earned by lawful combatants, including the right to stop the shooting by raising one's hands in purported surrender."

Centre For Pil & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 3 March, 2011 SC

legality of the appointment of Shri P.J. Thomas - Government is not accountable to the courts in respect of policy decisions. However, they are accountable for the legality of such decisions. While deciding this case, we must keep in mind the difference between legality and merit as also between judicial review and merit review- legality of the recommendation dated 3rd September, 2010 and the appointment based thereon. As of date, Shri P.J. Thomas is Accused No. 8 in criminal case CC 6 of 2003 pending in the Court of Special Judge, Thiruvananthapuram with respect to the offences under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code- appointment quashed.

Info Edge (India) Private Limited and another Vs Shailesh Gupta and another 98 (2002) DLT 499

"It was sought to be submitted by the counsel appearing for the defendant that the word 'Naukri' cannot assume a significance of a trademark, as the same is generic. The word 'Naukri', would be a descriptive word as it denotes and describes the nature of work and business offered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff has chosen to use the domain name 'Naukri.Com', which is descriptive of the business, the plaintiff carries on i.e. it gives information to its subscribers about the availability of jobs and employment in various establishments, concerns and offices and the manner in which request for employment could be made and, therefore, it is a service offered by the plaintiff relating to job opportunity and situation and giving guidance thereto and, therefore, the same is a descriptive word. It is also a settled law that the distinction between the generic word and descriptive word is very thin and such word could also assume a secondary meaning by its long user by a person, who establishes his reputation in the market.

If a product of a particular character or composition is marketed in a particular area or place under a descriptive name and gained a reputation there under, that name which distinguished it from competing products of different composition, the goodwill in the name of those entitled to make use of it there was protected against deceptive use there of the name of competitors. In Erven Warnink by and Ors Vs J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd. and Ors reported in (1979) 2 All ER, it was held that whether the name denoted a product made from ingredients from a particular locality or whether the goodwill in the name was the result of the product being made from particular ingredients regardless of their provenance, since it was the reputation that the product itself had gained in the market by reason of its recognisable and distinctive qualities which had generated the relevant goodwill. In the said case, the trademark was the name of a spirit-based product called ADVOCAAT. The said product had gained a reputation and goodwill for that name in the English market and the defendants were seeking to take advantage of that name by misrepresenting that their wine-based product was of the same type as ADVOCAAT."

Kamal Trading Co, Bombay and Others Vs Gillette UK Limited [1988] IPLR 135

Hon’ble Court observed as under

"... ... ..the plaintiffs have not established any of the conditions required for grant of interim relief. It was submitted that the goods manufactured by the plaintiffs and the defendants are different in nature; the plaintiffs manufacture blades, while the defendants manufacture "tooth brushes". The goods of the plaintiffs and the defendants are not available in the same shop and the customers of these goods are different. The goods sold by the plaintiffs are blades and fall in class 8, while those of the defendants are tooth brushes which fall in class 21. Relying on these circumstances, it was merit in this submission. In the first instance, the assumption of the learned counsel that the class of customers for purchase of safety blades and tooth brushes are different and these goods are not available in the same shop is wholly misconceived. We take judicial notice of the fact that these goods are available in every shop including a small shop and each and every person is required to purchase these goods. ... ... ..."

Honda Motors Company Limited Vs Charanjit Singh & Others 101 (2002) DLT 359

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"The case of the plaintiff is in fact based on passing off action and not for infringement of the trade mark. It has never been the case of the plaintiff that the two sets of goods are identical. The concept of passing off, which is a form of tort has undergone changes with the course of time. The plaintiff now does not have to be in direct competition with the defendant to suffer injury from the use of its trade name by the defendants

M/s. Bengal Waterproof Limited Vs. M/s. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and Another (1997) 1 SCC 99

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"... ... ...It is now well settled that an action for passing off is a common law remedy being an action in substance of deceit under the Law of Torts. Wherever and whenever fresh deceitful act is committed the person deceived would naturally have a fresh cause of action in his favour. Thus every time when a person passes off his goods as those of another he commits the act of such deceit. Similarly whenever and wherever a person commits breach of a registered trade mark of another he commits a recurring act of breach or infringement of such trade mark giving a recurring and fresh cause of action at each time of such infringement to the party aggrieved. ... ... ..."

T V Venogopal Vs Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd & Anr on 03.03.11

In this case Hon'ble SC of India restrain a compony from selling agarbati in the name famous newspaper of Andhra Pradesh

following two situations arise in case of copyright:
i. Where the name of the plaintiff is such as to give him exclusivity over the name, which would ipso facto extend to barring any other person from using the same. viz. Benz, Mahindra, Caterpillar, Reliance, Sahara, Diesel etc.
ii. The plaintiff's adopted name would be protected if it has acquired a strong enough association with the plaintiff and the defendant has adopted such a name in common field of activity i.e. the purchasers test as to whether in the facts of the case, the manner of sale, surrounding circumstances etc. would lead to an inference that the source of product is the plaintiff.

Anant Mills Co Ltd Vs State of Gujarat, (1975) 2 SCC 175

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

" The right of appeal is the creature of a statute. Without a statutory provision creating such a right the person aggrieved is not entitled to file an appeal. We fail to understand as to why the legislature while granting the right of appeal cannot impose conditions for the exercise of such right. In the absence of any special reasons there appears to be no legal or Constitutional impediment to the imposition of such conditions. It is permissible, for example, to prescribe a condition in criminal cases that unless a convicted person is released on bail, he must surrender to custody before his appeal against the sentence of imprisonment would be entertained. Likewise, it is permissible to enact a law that no appeal shall lie against an order relating to an assessment of tax unless the tax had been paid."

Charanjit Lal Mehra and Ors Vs Kamal Saroj Mahajan and Anr (2005) 11 SCC 279

CPC - Order XII Rule 6 - admissions could be "inferred" from the facts and circumstances of the case - "If there is any admission on part of the defendants or an admission that can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case without any dispute then, in such a case in order to expedite and dispose of the matter such admission can be acted upon."

Heinz Italia and another Vs Dabur India Limited (2007) 6 SCC 1

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"... .... it has been repeatedly held that before the use of a particular mark can be appropriated it is for the plaintiff to prove that the product that he is representing had earned a reputation in the market and that this reputation had been sought to be violated by the opposite party. In Corn Products case it was observed that the principle of similarity could not to be very rigidly applied and that if it could be prima facie shown that there was a dishonest intention on the part of the defendant in passing off goods, an injunction should ordinarily follow and the mere delay in bringing the matter to Court was not a ground to defeat the case of the plaintiff. It bears reiteration that the word "Glucon-D" and its packaging had been used by Glaxo since 1940 whereas the word "Glucose-D" had been used for the first time in the year 1989."

Re: Bineet Kumar Singh, (2001) 5 SCC 501

Contempt of Court- "....The sole object of the court wielding its power to punish for contempt is always for the course of administration of justice. Nothing is more incumbent upon the courts of justice than to preserve their proceedings from being misrepresented, nor is there anything more pernicious when the order of the court is forged and produced to gain undue advantage. Criminal contempt has been defined in Section 2(c) to mean interference with the administration of justice in any manner. A false or misleading or a wrong statement deliberately and wilfully made by a party to the proceedings to obtain a favourable order would undoubtedly tantamount to interference with the due course of judicial proceedings. When a person is found to have utilised an order of a court which he or she knows to be incorrect for conferring benefit on persons who are not entitled to the same, the very utilisation of the fabricated order by the person concerned would be sufficient to hold him/her guilty of contempt, irrespective of the fact whether he or she himself or herself is the author of fabrication....."

Kerala Financial Corporation Vs Vincent Paul & Anr

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed on 14.03.11 as under

"A highest bidder in public auction cannot have a right to get the property or any privilege, unless the authority confirms the auction sale, being fully satisfied that the property has fetched the appropriate price and there has been no collusion between the bidders.
In the matter of sale of public property, the dominant consideration is to secure the best price for the property to be sold. This can be achieved only when there is maximum public participation in the process of sale and everybody has an opportunity of making an offer. It becomes a legal obligation on the part of the authority that property be sold in such a manner that it may fetch the best price."

Dr Buddhi Kota Subbarao Vs K Parasaran & Ors AIR 1996 SC 2687

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. However, access to justice should not be misused as a license to file misconceived and frivolous petitions."

Gvk Inds. Ltd & Anr Vs The Income Tax Officer & Anr

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed on 1.03.11 as under

"Two divergent, and dichotomous, views present themselves before us. The first one arises from a rigid reading of the ratio in Electronics Corporation of India Ltd Vs Commissioner of Income Tax & ("ECIL") and suggests that Parliaments powers to legislate incorporate only a competence to enact laws with respect to aspects or causes that occur, arise or exist, or may be expected to do so, solely within India. A slightly weaker form of the foregoing strict territorial nexus restriction would be that the Parliament's competence to legislate with respect to extra- territorial aspects or causes would be constitutionally permissible if and only if they have or are expected to have significant or sufficient impact on or effect in or consequence for India. An even weaker form of the territorial nexus restriction would be that as long as some impact or nexus with India is established or expected, then the Parliament would be empowered to enact legislation with respect to such extra-territorial aspects or causes. The polar opposite of the territorial nexus theory, which emerges also as a logical consequence of the propositions of the learned Attorney General, specifies that the Parliament has inherent powers to legislate "for" any territory, including territories beyond India, and that no court in India may question or invalidate such laws on the ground that they are extra- territorial laws. Such a position incorporates the views that Parliament may enact legislation even with respect to extra- territorial aspects or causes that have no impact on, effect in or consequence for India, any part of it, its inhabitants or Indians, their interests, welfare, or security, and further that the purpose of such legislation need not in any manner or form be intended to benefit India

we have framed the following questions:
(1) Is the Parliament constitutionally restricted from enacting legislation with respect to extra-territorial aspects or causes that do not have, nor expected to have any, direct or indirect, tangible or intangible impact(s) on, or effect(s) in, or consequences for: (a) the territory of India, or any part of India; or (b) the interests of, welfare of, wellbeing of, or security of inhabitants of India, and Indians?

Yes

(2) Does the Parliament have the powers to legislate "for" any territory, other than the territory of India or any part of it?

No

A further clarification needs to be made before we proceed. The issue of whether laws that deal entirely with aspects or causes that occur, arise or exist, or may be expected to do so, within India, and yet require to be operated outside the territory of India could be invalidated on the grounds of such extra- territorial operation is not before us. The text of Clause (2) of Article 245, when read together with Clause (1) of Article 245 makes it sufficiently clear....

Indeed the Constitution is law, in its ordinary sense too; however, it is also a law made by the people as a nation, through its Constituent Assembly, in a foundational and a constitutive moment. Written constitutions seek to delineate the spheres of actions of, with more or less strictness, and the extent of powers exercisable therein by, various organs of the state....

One of the foundational elements of the concept of basic structure is it would give the stability of purpose, and machinery of government to be able to pursue the constitutional vision in to the indeterminate and unforeseeable future....

Our Constitution charges the various organs of the state with affirmative responsibilities of protecting the interests of, the welfare of and the security of the nation. Legislative powers are granted to enable the accomplishment of the goals of the nation. The powers of judicial review are granted in order to ensure that legislative and executive powers are used within the bounds specified in the Constitution. Consequently, it is imperative that the powers so granted to various organs of the state are not restricted impermissibly by judicial fiat such that it leads to inabilities of the organs of the State in discharging their constitutional responsibilities. Powers that have been granted, and implied by, and borne by the Constitutional text have to be perforce admitted. Nevertheless, the very essence of constitutionalism is also that no organ of the state may arrogate to itself powers beyond what is specified in the Constitution. Walking on that razors edge is the duty of the judiciary. Judicial restraint is necessary in dealing with the powers of another coordinate branch of the government; but restraint cannot imply abdication of the responsibility of walking on that edge....

On account of scientific and technological developments the magnitude of cross border travel and transactions has increased tremendously....

Because of interdependencies and the fact that many extra- territorial aspects or causes have an impact on or nexus with the territory of the nation-state, it would be impossible to conceive legislative powers and competence of national parliaments as being limited only to aspects or causes that arise, occur or exist or may be expected to do so, within the territory of its own nation-state. Our Constitution has to be necessarily understood as imposing affirmative obligations on all the organs of the State to protect the interests, welfare and security of India. Consequently, we have to understand that the Parliament has been constituted, and empowered to, and that its core role would be to, enact laws that serve such purposes. Hence even those extra-territorial aspects or causes, provided they have a nexus with India, should be deemed to be within the domain of legislative competence of the Parliament, except to the extent the Constitution itself specifies otherwise....

The grant of the power to legislate, to the Parliament, in Clause (1) of Article 245 comes with a limitation that arises out of the very purpose for which it has been constituted. That purpose is to continuously, and forever be acting in the interests of the people of India...

If one were to read Clause (2) of Article 245 as an independent source of legislative power of the Parliament to enact laws for territories beyond India wherein, neither the aspects or causes of such laws have a nexus with India, nor the purposes of such laws are for the benefit of India, it would immediately call into question as to why Clause (1) of Article 245 specifies that it is the territory of India or a part thereof "for" which the Parliament may make laws. If the power to enact laws for any territory, including a foreign territory, were to be read into Clause (2) of Article 245, the phrase "for the whole or any part of the territory of India" in Clause (1) of Article 245 would become a mere surplassage. When something is specified in an Article of the Constitution it is to be taken, as a matter of initial assessment, as nothing more was intended. In this case it is the territory of India that is specified by the phrase "for the whole or any part of the territory of India." "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius"- the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another. In this case Parliament has been granted powers to make laws "for" a specific territory - and that is India or any part thereof; by implication, one may not read that the Parliament has been granted powers to make laws "for" territories beyond India..."

Gopol Dass Through Brother Anand Vir Vs Union Of India & Anr, SC on 14 March, 2011

Hon'ble Justice Markandey Katju observed, "We cannot give any directions to Pakistan authorities because we have no jurisdiction over them. The Indian authorities have done all that they could in the matter. However, that does not prevent us from making a request to the Pakistani authorities to consider the appeal of the petitioner for releasing him on humanitarian grounds by remitting the remaining part of his sentence."

Gopal Das was release before indo Pak world cup match in march 2011 though his 25 years of imprisonment going to end on 25.06.11

Kusuma Ankama Rao Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 2008 SC 2819

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"Extra-judicial confessions are generally those that are made by a party to or before a private individual which includes even a judicial officer in his private capacity. It also includes a Magistrate who is not especially empowered to record confessions under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or a Magistrate so empowered but receiving the confession at a stage when Section 164 does not apply. As to extra-judicial confessions, two questions arise : (i) were they made voluntarily ? and (ii) are they true ? As the section enacts, a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in criminal proceedings, if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, (1) having reference to the charge against the accused person, (2) proceeding from a person in authority, and (3) sufficient, in the opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him.."

Use video-conferencing to decide cases, say prison authorities - Mumbai - DNA

Use video-conferencing to decide cases, say prison authorities - Mumbai - DNA

JURIST - Paper Chase: Brazil supreme court recognizes same-sex civil unions

JURIST - Paper Chase: Brazil supreme court recognizes same-sex civil unions

State Of Maharashtra & Ors Vs M/S Ark Builders Pvt Ltd on 28 February, 2011

Whether the period of limitation for making an application under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside an arbitral award is to be reckoned from the date a copy of the award is received by the objector by any means and from any source, or it would start running from the date a signed copy of the award is delivered to him by the arbitrator?


Held-From date of signed copy delivered to him.

The Volokh Conspiracy » Applying the Rules of Evidence Related to Authentication to Online Sources

The Volokh Conspiracy » Applying the Rules of Evidence Related to Authentication to Online Sources

State of UP Vs Satish 2005 (3) SCC 114

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"The last seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible. It would be difficult in some cases to positively establish that the deceased was last seen with the accused when there is a long gap and possibility of other persons coming in between exists. In the absence of any other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together, it would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in those cases.

statute: 2.Supreme Court of India On Repugnancy and Inconsi...

statute: 2.Supreme Court of India On Repugnancy and Inconsi...: "INTRODUCTION It hardly requires to be said that whether a statute either in its entirety or in part has been repealed by implication depe..."

HC stays Centre's notification levying service tax on lawyers - Taxation News - Law, Lawyers, Advocates, Law Firms,Legal Help, Legal Experts,Judgements,Law Help, Indian Lawyers

HC stays Centre's notification levying service tax on lawyers - Taxation News - Law, Lawyers, Advocates, Law Firms,Legal Help, Legal Experts,Judgements,Law Help, Indian Lawyers

Democratic war

Democratic war: "The Lokpal should be headed by a former judge of the Supreme Court with impeccable integrity. There has to be a provision for appeal to the Supreme Court"

Dhan Bahadur @ Raju Vs State Of NCT Of Delhi on 25 February, 2011

Hon’ble Court observed as under

'it is clear that prosecutrix was not a normal child and was suffering from mild mental retardation and was not in a position to communicate properly. For this reason, non-examination of prosecutrix in court will not be fatal in this case....

it cannot be expected that witness will absorb all the details and reproduce it in the testimony. In State v. Saravanan and Anr. AIR 2009 SC 152, Supreme Court has held that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evidence in its entirety. '

Supreme Court asks lawyer to file fresh apology

Supreme Court asks lawyer to file fresh apology

Swamy’s plea to be 2G prosecutor dismissed

Swamy’s plea to be 2G prosecutor dismissed

State of UP Vs Babul Nath (1994) 6 SCC 29 Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"To constitute the offence of rape neither Section 375 of IPC nor the Explanation attached thereto require that there should necessarily be complete penetration of the penis into the private part of the victim/prosecutrix. In other words to constitute the offence of rape it is not at all necessary that there should be complete penetration of the male organ with emission of semen and rupture of hymen. Even partial or slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia majora or the vulva or pudenda with or without any emission of semen or even an attempt at penetration into the private part of the victim would be quite enough for the purpose of Sections 375 and 376 of IPC. That being so it is quite possible to commit legally the offence of rape even without causing any injury to the genitals or leaving any seminal stains. But in the present case before us as noticed above there is more than enough evidence positively showing that there was sexual activity on the victim and she was subjected to sexual assault without which she would not have sustained injuries of the nature found on her private part by the doctor who examined her."

State of Gujarat Vs Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal & Anr AIR 1987 SC 1321,

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"...To deny the opportunity to remove the formal defect was to abort a case against an alleged economic offender. Ends of justice are not satisfied only when the accused in a criminal case is acquitted. The community acting through the State and the Public Prosecutor is also entitled to justice. The cause of the community deserves equal treatment at the hands of the court in the discharge of its judicial functions. The community or the State is not a persona-non-grata whose cause may be treated with disdain. The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest....."

State of Bihar and Ors Vs Sri Radha Krishna Singh & Ors AIR 1983 SC 684

Evidence Act- Document- admissibility vs value -"Admissibility of a document is one thing and its probative value quite another - these two aspects cannot be combined. A document may be admissible and yet may not carry any conviction and the weight of its probative value may be nil."

In Ramrajsingh Vs State of MP and another (2009) 6 SCC 729

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under

"To launch a prosecution, therefore, against the alleged Directors there must be a specific allegation in the complaint as to the part played by them in the transaction. There should be clear and unambiguous allegation as to how the Directors are in-charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. The description should be clear. It is true that precise words from the provisions of the Act need not be reproduced and the court can always come to a conclusion in facts of each case. But still in the absence of any averment or specific evidence the net result would be that complaint would not be entertainable."

Subodh S Salaskar Vs Jayprakash M Shah & Another, VII (2008) SLT 127

CrPC- complaint - amendment- complaint petition was sought to be amended by adding Section 420 of IPC in the complaint. It was held by the Court that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction to allow the amendment of the complaint petition