Fortnightly Newsletter- July 30, 2018

0
169

July 30, 2018

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENTS

SC Condemns High Court for Passing Non-Reasoned Order

Case name: Central Board of Trustees v. M/s Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd.

The Supreme Court in the case emphasized that the Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case which must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion.

Read more here.

SC Condemns Non- Reasoned Order Passed by High Court

SC Sets Aside Family Court Order Awarding 15 lakhs as Permanent Alimony to Wife

Bombay HC Sets Aside Maha RERA’s Order for being Non-Reasoned

SC: 3rd Party Insurance Cover for Vehicles Compulsory from Sept 1

Case name: S. Rajaseekaran v. Union of India & ors.

In this recent case the Apex Court has ordered that it shall be mandatory for all General Insurance Companies to issue a three year third party insurance cover for new cars and five year third party insurance cover for new two wheelers as a separate product or as part of a comprehensive insurance product. IRDA should issue instructions accordingly to all General Insurance Companies.

Read more here.

Supreme Court Issues Directions for Road Safety in India

Court to Presume Offence of Accepting Bribe if no Explanation for Possessing Bribe Money is Given

Case name: State of Gujrat v. Navinbhai Chandrakant Joshi Etc.

In the case, the Apex Court with reference to the offence of bribery has held that if the accused  possessing the bribe money, fail to offer any satisfactory explanation, then it will be presumed that he has accepted the bribe.

Lynching and Mob Violence: Supreme Court Issues Guidelines

Case name: Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India & ors.

The Supreme Court in the case has issued guidelines in the form of preventive, remedial and punitive measures for preventing the growing incidence of lynching in India.

The guidelines and the entire judgment can be accessed here.

HIGH COURT JUDGMENTS

Court says Duty of Parents to Maintain Unemployed Adult Child

Case name: Mohan Singh Mawri v. Smt. Haripriya Mawri

The High Court of Uttarakhand while revising the amount of maintenance awarded to the wife observed that though an adult son cannot claim maintenance from his parents as a matter of right, but in the Indian culture we cannot forget the fact that the parents have to maintain their adult child till he gets suitable employment and it is a social duty casts upon the parents to maintain the adult child. This Indian culture and custom cannot be compared with the European culture and custom.

Read more here.

Bombay HC: Prescribing Medicine without Diagnosis is Culpable Homicide

The High Court of Bombay in a recent case has observed that prescribing of medicines to patients without conducting diagnosis amounted to the offence of culpable homicide.

Read more here.

Court says that Cinema Halls/Multiplexes Cannot Prohibit Outside Food

Case name: Sidharth Anand & Anr. v. State of J&K & ors.

In this recent case, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir has succinctly stated that cinema goers cannot be forced by the multiplexes/cinema hall owners to purchase food and water from theatre premises nor they can be prohibited from carrying food items into malls and multiplexes from outside.

Read more here.

Delhi HC: ITR can be filed without Linking Aadhaar

Case name: Shreyasen & Anr. v. Union of India & ors.

The Two-Judge Bench of the High Court of Delhi in view of the facts and circumstances in the case has now directed that the petitioners shall be permitted to file their returns, for AY 2018- 2019, without any insistence of linkage of their Aadhar and their PAN numbers and without instance of production of their proof of Aadhar enrollment. In case the returns are filed within the time prescribed by law, without such linkage, they shall be processed in accordance with law.

Read more here.

Court Acquits Accused as Official didn’t Comply with Section 50 of NDPS Act

Case name: Joginder Singh v. The State of Himachal Pradesh

In this recent case, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh has elucidated on the object behind enactment of Section 50 of the NDPS Act. The provision enumerates the circumstances under which search of a person shall be conducted. It states that when any officer is about to search any person under the provisions of Section 42 or Section 43, he shall, if such person as requires, take such person without unnecessary delay to the nearest Gazetted Officer of any of the departments mentioned in Section 42 or to the nearest Magistrate.

Read more here.

Jharkhand HC: No Appointment on Compassionate Ground if Petitioner was Minor at Time of Father’s Death

Case name: Gangadhar Thakur v. The Central Coalfields Limited & ors.

While arriving at its decision in the case, the High Court made reference to Supreme Court’s judgment in the case of National Institute of Technology and Others vs. Niraj Kumar Singh[1], wherein the son of the deceased, was only one year old at the time of his father’s death. Thus, the Apex Court on that ground denied appointment to the deceased’s son on compassionate ground.

Minor has No Right to Compassionate Appointment at Time of Father’s Death in Harness

10 Important Judgments on Service Law in India

Every Violation of Visa Norm can’t Ban Person from Entering Country

Case name: Mohammad Abdul Moyeed v. Union of India & Ors.

Two essential observations was made by the High Court of Delhi in the case. Firstly, the Court noted that every violation of visa norm cannot possibly lead to banning a person from entering into the country unless there is material to show that the person concerned acted in a manner which was inimical to our national interest and Secondly, that profiling a person solely on the basis of the religion he or she practices is contrary to our constitutional creed.

Read more here.

Men can’t Justify Rape on the Ground that Prosecutrix was of Loose Character

Case name: Ramkrishna Ganesh Wagh v. State of Maharashtra

In the case, the Bombay High Court upheld the Appellant’s conviction observing that even if the prosecutrix was assumed to be of loose character, it could not be said that the appellant had the right to rape her or to have sexual intercourse with her.

Read more here.

Single Co-owner cannot Terminate Tenancy for Seeking Possession

Case name: Navin Chander Anand v. Union Bank of Indian & Ors.

The crux of the litigation was that the Appellant being the co-owner/co-landlord of the suit property applied for termination of tenancy.

The High Court of Delhi in the case held that when there are various co-owners/co-landlords, only one co-owner/co-landlord cannot terminate the tenancy for seeking possession of the tenanted property and/or mesne profits.

Read more here.

Right of Senior Citizen over Immovable Property and Eviction of Abusive Children

Case name: Pramod Ranjankar & Anr. v. Arunashankar & ors.

The High Court of Chattisgarh in the case while recognizing Senior citizen’s right over immovable property observed that the anxiety to stop the right of the abuse of senior citizen is to be made effective as otherwise it would be a symbolic collapse of the legal system by not responding to the request or by adhering to the dummy mode by Courts.

Uttarakhand HC: Every Senor Citizen has Right to Live with Dignity

Can Senior Citizens Evict Children from their Home? Read this case

Kerala HC Quashes College’s Decision to Expel Students for having Love Affair

In this recent case, the High Court of Kerala while reinstating the expelled students back to college relied on Supreme Court’s judgment in right to privacy case (K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India) to hold that the freedom to choose life partner fell within the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Read more here.

Prima Facie Case of Domestic Violence to be made out for Grant of Interim Maintenance u/DV Act

Case name: Ashmin Kashmiri v. Pushkar Kashmiri

In this case, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh has ruled that for grant of interim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act, the existence of instances of domestic violence is required to be made out.

Read more here.

Kerala HC: Only Smell of Alcohol not Enough for Prosecution

Case name: Mukesh M.K. v. State of Kerala & Anr.

The High Court of Kerala in the case has opined that in case of offence of drinking at pubic place, the prosecution will have to prove that the accused was found consuming liquor at a public place, and that the liquid he consumed was identified as liquor.

Read more here.

Delhi HC: Why Marital Rape should be an Exception to Section 375 of IPC?

The Delhi High Court took up a batch of petitions filed by NGO RIT Foundation and All India Democratic Women’s Association and a marital rape victim who have challenged the constitutionality of Section 375 of IPC (the provision defines rape and the exception to Section 375 states that Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape).

The Petitions instituted with the High Court have been challenged by the NGO, Men Welfare Trust on the ground that married women have been given adequate protection under law against sexual violence. The High Court to the said contention replied that “a rape is a rape. Is it that of you are married it is okay, but if you are not then it is a rape? Why it should be exception under Section 375 of IPC? Force is not a pre-condition for rape.”

Read more here.

Police has no Power to Seal Immovable Property u/S 102 of CrPC

 Case name: Nasir Hussain v. State of Chattisgarh & Ors.

In the instant case, the High Court has deliberated on the power of Police under Section 102 of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) according to which the Police Officer may seize any property which is suspected to have been stolen or found under suspicious

Read more here.

Single/Unwed Mother Can’t be Compelled to Disclose Father’s Name for Birth Certificate

Case name: Mathumitha Ramesh v. The Chief Health Officer & Ors.

In this recent case, the High Court of Madras has expounded on the issue whether concerned authorities can compel single or unwed mothers to disclose father’s name for the purpose of birth certificate of the concerned child.

Read more here.