Supreme Court of India Brijlala Pd. Sinha vs State Of Bihar on 13 July, 1998 Author: Pattanaik Bench: M Mukherjee, G Pattanaik PETITIONER: BRIJLALA PD. SINHA Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/07/1998 BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, G.B. PATTANAIK ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: WITH CRL. APPEAL Nos. 218/98, 279/98 & 280-282/98 JUDGMENT PATTANAIK,J. These five […]Read More Supreme Court on Fake Encounter Killing
In a suit filed against Reciever appointed by court sanction u/s 80 CPC is required – however if leave nto taken before instituion is taken afterwards (leave to continue with suit) then defect is not fatal so as to defeat the very action. Courts should not be hypertechnical. Supreme Court of India Everest Coal Company […]Read More Suit against court appointed Reciever Sanction u/s 80 CPC sine qua non
Comment : In this case the SC highlighted again that merely by adoption the adoptive parents are not deprived of right to deal with their properties as such, however if there is an agreement to the contrary such rights may be restricted, and since by such agreement right/title/interest is created/declared and extinguished it is required […]Read More Marriage without Sex – Anathema – Court holds Impotency/Refusal to have Intercourse – Mental Cruelty
Comment : This case deals with factors that the judge has to consider while granting police custody, which can be summed up as :- i) Balancing rights of a person accused of an offence) and the societal interest in protection against criminals (tackled through effective investigations)- is a perrenial problem of statecraft; ii) Custody with POlice/Detention […]Read More Gujarat High Court on the Law of Police Remand – Police Custody when to be granted ?
Comment : In this case the landlord preferred a revision against the order of the decision of ARC dismissing his eviction petition on the ground that it was filed within 5 years of getting ownership of the concerned premises, which was directly barred by S.14(6). The Counsel for the landlord took the attractive plea that since […]Read More DHC on Delhi Rent Control Act – S.14(1)(e)/14(6)/25B(8)
QUESTION : Cinematograph Act 1952 Section 5A-Whether the issuance of the certificate issued by the specialised Board of Film Censors bars the criminal Court’s jurisdiction to try for offences under Sections 292/293 I.P.C ? Court said no…read on Supreme Court of India Raj Kapoor And Ors vs State And Others on 26 October, […]Read More Supreme Court on obscenity (Raj Kapoor v. State) Justice Krishna Iyer.
A Remarkable judgment outlining the law of obscenity as it stands in India, in a nutshell, while holding Bandit Queen to have been rightly passed by the Censors, held it not to obscene as it in no manner appeals to the prurient interests or is lascivious – or corruptive to the minds of people whose […]Read More Supreme Court on obscenity (Bandit Queen Judgment)
Comment : In this case the issues that arose for consideration were “Whether a landlord can file a revision u/s 25B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act against a judgment wherein he loses his case” The Court held yes – in light of Vinod Kr. Choudhary v. Narain Devi Taneja (1980) SC 3 judges Bench. […]Read More Revision by Landlord against ARC’s adverse judgment – is maintainable