Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“These are the cases where personal liberty of the citizen is at stake. The Magistrate should very well be sensitized in these types of issues, especially about the judgments which relate and deal with personal liberty.”
The Court passed an interim order directing the respondents not to proceed with the investigation of the FIR.
The candidate had scored 1st rank under the Scheduled Tribe category in the Assistant Professor exam for Nagpuri language.
“We have no hesitation in declaring that notices issued under Section 61 to the respective writ petitioners are wholly without jurisdiction and are, accordingly, liable to be quashed/set aside by this Court.”
The Court ordered strict enforcement of the 2023 Office Memorandum issued by the Union of India under Section 5 of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 which recognized the sanctity of Parasnath Hill and its significance for the Jain community directing a ban on tourism and other activities.
The Court relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in a case where a similar amendment of by State of Rajasthan was held ultra vires Article 14 and Article 246 of the Constitution due to the doctrine of public policy being vague and uncertain.
“The claimants are not supposed to know the exact policy number, and they have gathered it from somewhere and produced it before the Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal.”
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.
The Court stated that it failed to understand how the respondents could have retained the amounts deposited by the petitioner at the time of preferring the appeal and seeking stay of demand, after the appeal is decided, and matter is remitted back, and fresh assessment order is passed.
The intention of both the parties where to go for arbitration, is at Ranchi and the proceeding after permission of the High Court was also conducted at Ranchi and in the agreement, the seat is also said to be at Ranchi. Thus, Ranchi court is having jurisdiction.
Section 21(4) of Mental Healthcare Act provides that every insurer shall make provision for medical insurance for treatment of mental illness on the same basis as is provided for physical illness.
‘Liberty of a citizen of the country must be kept at the highest pedestal and there must be impeccable evidence to curtail the same.’
The issues of the under-trial prisoners or inmates in judicial custody, are required to be medically examined, particularly, the old age inmates where the likelihood of the issue of Cataract, Diabetes, Blood Pressure and other old age ailments are likely to grief such inmates.
In the present case, there are concurrent findings that the accused persons abused the informant while he was discharging his duty in his office-cum-chamber and insulted him before public and subordinates. Further, the informant was pressurized to issue death certificate, which he was otherwise not agreeable to issue, after explaining the reasons.
In violation of the constitutional mandate to make appointment on regular basis, the State of Jharkhand appointed the appellant on daily wage basis and subsequently, on contractual basis and were utilizing the services of the appellant. There was no valid explanation for the same.
“Where the disciplinary proceeding itself is without jurisdiction, upholding the same on the specious plea that it was not challenged on the ground of lack of jurisdiction would be tantamount to giving imprimatur to a patently illegal proceeding”
In the present case, the petitioner has helped one lady against the allegation of incumbent sitting Chief Minister, which clearly suggests that maliciously the case was registered against the petitioner and the investigation was also made with pre-occupied mind.
Mere presence of the antecedents will not lead to a presumption about the active involvement of the accused in any activity, without any material proof in support.
Even if the ticket was not recovered from his person while preparing the inquest report of the deceased, mere filing of the affidavit on behalf of the appellant was sufficient to raise the presumption that the deceased was bona fide passenger.
Sworn in as 16th Chief Justice of the High Court of Jharkhand on 25-09-2024, Justice M. S. Ramachandra Rao, a 3rd generation Judge, also served as Chief Justice of High Court of Himachal Pradesh.