Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The original judgment of the Special Court convicted and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for seven years on the convict. However, the convict had already undergone eleven years of actual sentence.
The Court further held that in order to meet the ends of justice and with a view to ensure that public interest is safeguarded and to give effect to the salutary object behind the enactment of the NDPS Act, the decision in Union of India v. Sanjeev V. Deshpande (2014) 13 SCC 1, must be given retrospective application.
“Effective resettlement of ex-servicemen is necessary to keep the morale of the serving members of the defence forces. If the resettlement of veterans is neglected, the talented youth of the nation may not be motivated to join armed forces.”
“Homebuyers and developers have not always been the best of friends. Instances are innumerable where the two have been at daggers drawn. This case presents one such instance”
In the present case, the Supreme Court examined the vagaries of IP law and the intrinsic synergy that exists between two independent legislations, namely the Designs Act and the Copyright Act.
“Once it is accepted that the DSP post in question was reserved for ‘SC Sports (Women)’ as per advertisement, the appellant must be accepted as the only person qualified in her category who could be appointed. This is because she is the only SC woman candidate who successfully cleared all the tests for the post of DSP.”
The High Courts should direct for CBI investigation only in cases where material prima facie discloses something calling for an investigation by CBI and it should not be done in a routine manner or on the basis of some vague allegations. The “ifs” and “buts” without any definite conclusion are not sufficient to put an agency like CBI into motion.
“The incident is of the year 2014 and any further litigation, will only prolong the suffering of both the parties, who are living their own separate lives”
“There is a clear distinction between the Avoidance Applications that may be filed by the Resolution Professional in view of Section 25(2)(j), for avoidance of transactions in accordance with Chapter III of the IBC, and the applications that may be filed in respect of the fraudulent trading or wrongful trading under Section 66, which falls under Chapter VI of the IBC.”
by Hiresh Choudhary* and Surbhi Sharma**
The High Court unfortunately reversed the acquittal without anything other than a finding on alibi having not been proved and the accused not having offered any explanation regarding the death of the deceased, which occurred while they were living together.
by Aseem Chaturvedi*, Arpit Kumar Singh**, Siddhant Kumar*** and Amaan Khan****
“Despite the factual background and the credible evidence indicating irregularities, WBSSC initially did try and cover up the lapses and illegalities. The cover up itself has made the verification and ascertainment more difficult or rather impossible given the scale of camouflage and dressing up done at each stage. We are convinced that the entire selection process was intentionally compromised due to the illegalities involved.”
He also serves as Government Counsel for the States of Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh before the Supreme Court.
“Even if the litigants do not understand what is in their best interest, it is the duty of the Court to deliver substantial justice.”
“Finding that the driver was not cautious is one thing and finding negligence is quite another thing. Prima facie, the negligence was on the trailer driver as discernible from the evidence recorded before the Tribunal; standard of proof required being preponderance of probability”.
Counsel for the appellant argued that allegations in the FIR do not constitute any offence. If any averment made in the written statement or the affidavit filed before the Civil Court is incorrect or false, it is for the Civil Court to decide the same.
Supreme Court found no logic or rationale behind excluding candidates holding Master’s or Doctorate degrees in these subjects from claiming the post of FSO, as such an interpretation would have been unjust, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.
“Merely because the witnesses are relatives of the deceased, and as such are interested witnesses, that alone cannot be a ground to discard their testimony. The only requirement is that the testimony of such witnesses has to be scrutinized with greater caution and circumspection.”