State of UP Vs Anil singh AIR 1988 SC 1998

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as

"In the great majority of cases, the prosecution version is rejected either for want of corroboration by independent witnesses, or for some falsehood stated or embroidery added by witnesses. In some cases, the entire prosecution case is doubted for not examining all witnesses to the occurrence. The indifferent attitude of the public in the investigation of crimes could also be pointed. The public are generally reluctant to come forward to depose before the Court. It is, therefore, not correct to reject the prosecution version only on the ground that all witnesses to the occurrence have not been examined. It is also not proper to reject the case for want of corroboration by independent witnesses if the case made out is otherwise true and acceptable. With regard to falsehood stated or embellishments added by the prosecution witnesses, it is well to remember that there is a tendency amongst witnesses in our country to back up a good case by false or exaggerated version. It is also experienced that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform"

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. ... ... ..."

Kerala High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co Ltd Vs Associated Transport Corporation Pvt Ltd & Anr AIR 1988 Kerala 36

Hon’ble High Court observed as under

"Ext. B1 series in this case also contain printed words "subject to Bombay jurisdiction alone"; Apart from the existence of these printed words, respondent has no case that there was a meeting of minds between the consignor and the carrier and there was a specific agreement in that behalf. The consignment was delivered to the carrier, the carrier took custody of the goods and thereafter issued the receipt or consignment note which contained the printed words. The note was signed only by an employee of the respondent. No doubt, they were handed over to the consignor. Hut there was nothing to indicate that there was an agreement between the parties to confer exclusive jurisdiction to Bombay Court. These printed words by themselves and without anything more would not be sufficient to constitute an agreement to oust the jurisdiction of all Courts other than the Court specified. In these circumstances, we set aside the finding of the Court below that it had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. We find that the Court below had answered all the issues either in favour of one party or the other. The parties have no right of appeal against those findings in as much as the plaint itself was returned. In these circumstances, we deem it expedient to direct the Court below to re-try all the issues and dispose of the suit afresh. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that the Court below had held that the appellant was incompetent to sue. This issue also will be retried along with the other issues."

M/S Abhilash Textiles Vs The Rajkot Municipal Corp, AIR 1988 Guj 57

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed as under, "Is there any right to carry on business or trade in unregulated manner and cause nuisance to the public and also become a health hazard to the society at large? If no, can the petitioners claim any right to be heard before they are asked to discontinue or prevent the nuisance?....
Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution confers right upon every citizen to practice any profession or to carry on any occupation, trade or business. But this fundamental right is subject to reasonable restrictions which may be placed in the interest of the general public as provided for in sub-clause (6) of Art. 19 itself. No one has a right to carry on business so as to cause nuisance to the society….
The petitioners cannot assert their right, much less fundamental right, to carry on business without any regard to the fundamental duty. In a complex society, in which we live today, no one can claim absolute freedom without incurring any obligation whatsoever for the general well being.”

Madhavrao Jiwajirao Scindia & Others Vs Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre & Others (1988) 1 SCC 692

Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed, “The legal position is well settled that when a prosecution at the initial stage is asked to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is as to whether the uncontroverted allegations as made prima facie establish the offence. It is also for the court to take into consideration any special features which appear in a particular case to consider whether it is expedient and in the interest of justice to permit a prosecution to continue. This is so on the basis that the court cannot be utilized for any oblique purpose and where in the opinion of the court chances of an ultimate conviction is bleak and, therefore, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing a criminal prosecution to continue, the court may while taking into consideration the special facts of a case also quash the proceeding even though it may be at a preliminary stage.”

Smt Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav Vs Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr AIR 1988 S.C.

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed, “The marriages covered by S.11 are void ipso jure, that is, void from the very inception, and have to be ignored as not existing in law at all if and when such a question arises. Although the section permits a formal declaration to be made on the presentation of a petition, it is not essential to obtain in advance such a formal declaration from a court in a proceeding specifically commenced from the purpose….the marriage of a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse is a complete nullity in the eye of law and she is not entitled to the benefit of Section 125 of the Code..”

Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, (1988)1 SCC 105, The word 'cruelty' has not been defined in the Hindu Marriage Act. It has been used in Section 13(1)(i)(a) of the Act in the context of human conduct or behaviour in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties or obligations. It is a course of conduct of one which is adversely affecting the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. If it is physical, it is a question of fact and degree. If it is mental, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the spouse.