SC asks states to act fast on high security registration plates - The Times of India

SC asks states to act fast on high security registration plates - The Times of India

Government may name prosecutor in 2G case tomorrow - PTI -

Government may name prosecutor in 2G case tomorrow - PTI -

Jagpal Singh & Ors Vs State Of Punjab & Ors

Decided by Supreme Court of India on 28.01.11

In many states Government orders have been issued by the State Government permitting allotment of Gram Sabha land to private persons and commercial enterprises on payment of some money. In our opinion all such Government orders are illegal, and should be ignored....
In Uttar Pradesh the U P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1954 was widely misused to usurp Gram Sabha lands either with connivance of the Consolidation Authorities, or by forging orders purported to have been passed by Consolidation Officers in the long past so that they may not be compared with the original revenue record showing the land as Gram Sabha land, as these revenue records had been weeded out. Similar may have been the practice in other States. The time has now come to review all these orders by which the common village land has been grabbed by such fraudulent practices....
Before parting with this case we give directions to all the State Governments in the country that they should prepare schemes for eviction of illegal/unauthorized occupants of Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Poramboke/Shamlat land and these must be restored to the Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat for the common use of villagers of the village. For this purpose the Chief Secretaries of all State Governments/Union Territories in India are directed to do the needful, taking the help of other senior officers of the Governments. The said scheme should provide for the speedy eviction of such illegal occupant, after giving him a show cause notice and a brief hearing. Long duration of such illegal occupation or huge expenditure in making constructions thereon or political connections must not be treated as a justification for condoning this illegal act or for regularizing the illegal possession. Regularization should only be permitted in exceptional cases e.g. where lease has been granted under some Government notification to landless labourers or members of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, or where there is already a school, dispensary or other public utility on the land.

R C Bansal Vs Cbi & Ors decided by High Court of Delhi on 2.02.11

Hon’ble High Court observed as under "Order summoning accused persons is liable to be quashed for the reason that that order was passed at a time when the case had already been fixed for arguments on charge and the stage of summoning additional persons as accused had gone by and the stage of Section 319 Cr.P.C. had not yet reached. Consequently, even the direction given for registration of a case against the investigating officer has also to be set aside."

Ajit Singh & Ors Vs Rani

Decided by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi on 1.02.2011
Here, respondent had agreed for quashing of criminal case in order to reconcile and give a fresh chance to the marriage so that she could happily live in matrimonial home. Since the atmosphere in the matrimonial home continued to be same and she could not live there, I consider that she cannot be forced to withdraw the criminal complaint lodged by her on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties.

T N Lakshmaiah Vs State of Karnataka (2002) 1 SCC 219

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India observed as under "Under the Evidence Act, the onus of proving any of the exceptions mentioned in the Chapter lies on the accused though the requisite standard of proof is not the same as expected from the prosecution. It is sufficient if an accused is able to bring his case within the ambit of any of the general exceptions by the standard of preponderance of probabilities, as a result of which he may succeed not because that he proves his case to the hilt but because the version given by him casts a doubt on the prosecution case.

In State of M P Vs Ahmadull AIR 1961 SC 998, this Court held that the burden of proof that the mental condition of the accused was, at the crucial point of time, such as is described by the section, lies on the accused who claims the benefit of this exemption vide Section 105 of the Evidence Act [Illustration (a)]. The settled position of law is that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. Mere ipse dixit of the accused is not enough for availing of the benefit of the exceptions under Chapter IV.
In a case where the exception under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is claimed, the court has to consider whether, at the time of commission of the offence, the accused, by reason of unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The entire conduct of the accused, from the time of the commission of the offence up to the time the sessions proceedings commenced, is relevant for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether plea raised was genuine, bona fide or an afterthought."

Ram Chandra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand, 2011

It is a case on section 493 IPC. In this case two judges of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India differs on the applicability of the section on the facts of the case. Hon'ble Markandey Katju base his opinion on an agreement between parties to merry that this agreement itself shows that lady were not under beilef that she is marreied wife of accused. On the other hand Hon'ble Justice Gyan Sudha Mishra placed reliance on living together for 9 years and application for registration of marriage. Hon'ble Justice Katju also made several observation with regard to the distinction of law from morality and tried to held that it may be immoral to live with a woman without marries for 9 years but not an offense. Matter was referred to larger bench. With due respect it is submitted that Justice Katju wrongly divert his discussion on the morality and law. Though he rightly concluded that "It is true that the appellant has not behaved like a gentleman. He lived with the complainant for nine years and had two children by her, and hence as a decent person he should have married her which he did not do." but failed to understand that if it is immoral to live with a lady without marries then living with a men for 9 years without marries also come under the same preview. It was not the duty of the court that which of the party is gentlemen and which is not. Court has only one duty to see whether ingredients section 493 is attracted or not.

Competition Commission of India Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd & Anr

The main objective of competition law is to promote economic efficiency using competition as one of the means of assisting the creation of market responsive to consumer preferences.
1) In terms of Section 53A(1)(a) of the Act appeal shall lie only against such directions, decisions or orders passed by the Commission before the Tribunal which have been specifically stated under the provisions of Section 53A(1)(a). The orders, which have not been specifically made appealable, cannot be treated appealable by implication. For example taking a prima facie view and issuing a direction to the Director General for investigation would not be an order appealable under Section 53A.
2) Neither any statutory duty is cast on the Commission to issue notice or grant hearing, nor any party can claim, as a matter of right, notice and/or hearing at the stage of formation of opinion by the Commission...However, the Commission, being a statutory body exercising, inter alia, regulatory jurisdiction, even at that stage, in its discretion and in appropriate cases may call upon the concerned party(s) to render required assistance or produce requisite information, as per its directive. The Commission is expected to form such prima facie view without entering upon any adjudicatory or determinative process....
3) The Commission, in cases where the inquiry has been initiated by the Commission suo moto, shall be a necessary party and in all other cases the Commission shall be a proper party in the proceedings before the Competition Tribunal...
4) During an inquiry and where the Commission is satisfied that the act is in contravention of the provisions stated in Section 33 of the Act, it may issue an order temporarily restraining the party from carrying on such act, until the conclusion of such inquiry or until further orders without giving notice to such party, where it deems it necessary. This power has to be exercised by the Commission sparingly and under compelling and exceptional circumstances.
5) In consonance with the settled principles of administrative jurisprudence, the Commission is expected to record at least some reason even while forming a prima facie view. Right of appeal is neither a natural nor inherent right vested in a party. It is substantive statutory right regulated by the statute creating it. In absence of any specific provision creating a right in a party to file an appeal, such right can neither be assumed nor inferred in favour of the party. Expressum facit cessare tacitum – Express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of other.

Uday Vs State of Karnataka 2003 CriLJ 1539

IPC -376- rape- consent - for determining whether consent given by the prosecutor was voluntary or under a misconception of fact, no straitjacket formula can be laid down but following factors stand out;
(i) where a girl was of 19 years of age and had sufficient intelligence to understand the significance and moral quality of the act she was consenting to;
(ii) she was conscious of the fact that her marriage was difficult on account of caste considerations;
(iii) it was difficult to impute to the appellant knowledge the prosecutor had consented in consequence of a misconception of fact arising from his promise, and
(iv) there was no evidence to prove conclusively that the appellant never intended to marry the prosecutor.

State Of Orissa & Anr Vs Mamata Mohanty decided by Supreme Court of India on 09.02.11

It is a settled legal proposition that no person can be appointed even on a temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. If any appointment is made by merely inviting names from the Employment Exchange or putting a note on the Notice Board etc. that will not meet the requirement of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Such a course violates the mandates of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it deprives the candidates who are eligible for the post, from being considered. A person employed in violation of these provisions is not entitled to any relief including salary.

if an order is bad in its inception, it does not get sanctified at a later stage. A subsequent action/development cannot validate an action which was not lawful at its inception, for the reason that the illegality strikes at the root of the order.

the pleadings are more to help the court in narrowing the controversy involved and to inform the parties concerned to the question in issue, so that the parties may adduce appropriate evidence on the said issue. It is a settled legal proposition that "as a rule relief not founded on the pleadings should not be granted." Therefore, a decision of a case cannot be based on grounds outside the pleadings of the parties....

Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate illegality and it does not envisage negative equality. Thus, even if some other similarly situated persons have been granted some benefit inadvertently or by mistake, such order does not confer any legal right on the petitioner to get the same relief....

Every action of the State or its instrumentalities should not only be fair, legitimate and above-board but should be without any affection or aversion. It should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism. Procedural fairness is an implied mandatory requirement to protect against arbitrary action where Statute confers wide power coupled with wide discretion on an authority. If the procedure adopted by an authority offends the fundamental fairness or established ethos or shocks the conscience, the order stands vitiated.