Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act, 1872.
The Supreme Court affirmed the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s orders, whereby the validity of the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods Taxation Act, 1955 as amended by the Himachal Pradesh Passengers and Goods (Amendment and Validation) Act, 1997 were upheld.
Supreme Court said that the mere expectation of the Liquidator that a still higher price may be obtained can be no good ground to cancel an otherwise valid auction and go for another round of auction.
The Trial Court partly decreed the challenge against Constable’s discharge and held the discharge order illegal on the ground of being passed in violation of principles of natural justice.
“If the legislature merely seeks to validate the Acts, struck down or rendered inoperative by a Court, by a subsequent legislation without curing the defects in such legislation, the subsequent legislation would be ultra-vires“.
Supreme Court said that, since the appeal is a statutory remedy, the appellant had availed it and withdrawn the same, only as a pre-condition for availing the benefit under the Amnesty Scheme.
Supreme Court said that the burden was on the appellant more particularly in a circumstance when all the family members had got administered the same vaccination from the same source and the appellant himself did not undergo any difficulty when the first two doses were administered.
Supreme Court specifically highlighted the provision which cautioned that whatever the accused stated was to be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence.
“Truth is the soul of justice. The sole idea of the criminal justice system is to see that justice is done. Justice will be said to be done when no innocent person is punished, and the guilty person is not allowed to go scot free.”
The Court also revisited the difference between disturbances relatable to ‘law and order’ and disturbances caused to ‘public order’ and said that it is trite that breach of law in all cases does not lead to public disorder.
The hearing of the matter began on 02-08-2023 and was concluded on 05-09-2023.
There was a declaration of the accused as a proclaimed offender, and such declaration was subsisting on the date of the impugned order, thus, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court that the accused was entitled to ‘reform and course correct’.
It was alleged by the wife in the said FIR that she was subjected to physical abuse by her husband, who had pronounced triple talaq and was in relationship with another woman.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on use and enjoyment of property.
“The fact that wife confessed making a vicious complaint against her brother-in-law to the High Court clearly shows that her motives were not clean insofar as her brother-in-law is concerned, and she clearly wanted to wreak vengeance against her in-laws”
Supreme Court pointed towards the parameters/circumstances to be considered while granting or refusing bail as laid in a series of judgments.
Take a round of the Supreme Court's Judgments and Recommendations of the Collegium in the month of August along with some top stories on Rahul Gandhi's conviction, V Senthil Balaji, Manipur Violence and much more.
Supreme Court opined that the Trial Court, as well as, the Bombay High Court have rightly appreciated the evidence and convicted the convict for the offence punishable under Sections 307 and 332 of the IPC
Although the instant matter was remanded back to NCDRC to decide on facts, the Supreme Court very well elaborated the cause of action, Doctrine of Merger, principle of Res Judicata and Precedents.
“Provisions in the Customs Act, 1962 do not negate or override the statutory preference in terms of Section 529A of the Companies Act, 2013”.