Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Goa State notification of High Court of Bombay at Goa Officers and the Members of the Staff on the Establishment (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2023 contained a prefatory statement that they were made by the Chief Justice of the Bombay HC in exercise of the power conferred under Article 229 of the Constitution.
The Court pointed out that there is no embargo on considering the plea of absence of sanction, after cognizance is taken by the Special Court of the offences punishable under Section 4 of the PMLA.
“Appellate Courts must also keep in mind that the conditions imposed while suspending sentence of fine, should not be such that they are impossible to comply with, for such condition may amount to defeating the appellant’s right of appeal against the order of conviction.”
The Court further explained that Registration of a cognizable offence against the convict, per se, is not a ground to cancel the remission order. Every case of breach cannot invite cancellation of the remission order.
“There is no scope to bring equitable considerations while interpreting such a statute as the language of Sections 5, 8 and 9 is plain and simple, hence there is no scope for its liberal interpretation”.
Supreme Court clarified that till the date of communication of the order on the regularisation application, the limited interim relief granted on 6-08-2024 will continue to operate.
V. Senthil Balaji was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14-06-2023 for an alleged offence under Section 3 of PMLA.
Supreme Court suspected potential manipulation, indicating that someone might be purposely controlling the listing process.
Pointing out that if the law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, the same shall be done in that manner only, the Court held that decision to authorise search must be a decision of the Appropriate Authority as a whole.
The Court took serious note of distortions in the chargesheet vis-a-vis attributing certain statements to the protected witness, which he did not make, stating that NIA owes an explanation, and the investigating machinery must be fair.
The Delhi High Court had ruled that the Central Delhi Court Bar Association shall be recognized as the Court annexed Bar Association for the Rouse Avenue District Court Complex in the national capital.
“Royalty is in the nature of a tax or an exaction. It is not merely a contractual payment but a statutory levy under Section 9 of the MMDR Act.”
Supreme Court said that authorizing the Central Government to lay down the terms of mining leases and grant approval to concessions, the MMDR Act seeks to ensure that there is uniformity in the terms for working of mines and extraction of minerals.
“The payments made to the Government cannot be deemed to be a tax merely because the statute provides for their recovery as arrears”.
This matter was the oldest pending nine-judge Bench case before the Supreme court. The Bench had reserved its judgment in the matter on 14-03-2024
“An order granting a stay to the operation of the order granting bail during the pendency of the application for cancellation of bail should be passed in very rare cases”
Section 19(b) provides that a specific performance of a contract may be enforced against any other person claiming under him by a title arising subsequently to the contract, except a transferee for value who has paid his money in good faith and without notice of the original contract.
The Court was considering whether a bail condition requiring an accused to share Google Maps Pin with the investigating officer to access his location violates right to privacy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The impugned order passed by the Delhi High Court adequately protects the interests of the Federation as all the appointments have been made subject to the outcome of the pending Writ Petition”
“The requirement under Section 145 of the Evidence Act, 1872 of confronting the witness by showing him the relevant part of his prior statement is to give the witness a chance to explain the contradiction and this is a rule of fairness.”