Supreme Court on Fake Encounter Killing

Supreme Court of IndiaBrijlala Pd. Sinha vs State Of Bihar on 13 July, 1998Author: PattanaikBench: M Mukherjee, G PattanaikPETITIONER:BRIJLALA PD. SINHAVs.RESPONDENT:STATE OF BIHARDATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/07/1998BENCH:M.K. MUKHERJEE, G.B. PATTANAIKACT:HEADNOTE:JUDGMENT:WITHCRL. APPEAL Nos. 218/98, 279/98 & 280-282/98JUDGMENTPATTANAIK,J.These five appeals are directed against the judgment dated 28.11.1997, of the Patna High Court passed in Criminal Appeal No. 459 … Continue reading Supreme Court on Fake Encounter Killing

Suit against court appointed Reciever Sanction u/s 80 CPC sine qua non

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 IndiaEverest Coal Company (P) Ltd … Continue reading Suit against court appointed Reciever Sanction u/s 80 CPC sine qua non

Gujarat High Court on the Law of Police Remand – Police Custody when to be granted ?

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 is unfavoured … Continue reading Gujarat High Court on the Law of Police Remand – Police Custody when to be granted ?

DHC on Delhi Rent Control Act – S.14(1)(e)/14(6)/25B(8)

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 … Continue reading DHC on Delhi Rent Control Act – S.14(1)(e)/14(6)/25B(8)

Supreme Court on obscenity (Raj Kapoor v. State) Justice Krishna Iyer.

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 IndiaRaj Kapoor And Ors vs State And Others on 26 October, 1979Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 258, … Continue reading Supreme Court on obscenity (Raj Kapoor v. State) Justice Krishna Iyer.

Supreme Court on obscenity (Bandit Queen Judgment)

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 … Continue reading Supreme Court on obscenity (Bandit Queen Judgment)

Revision by Landlord against ARC’s adverse judgment – is maintainable

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.  Delhi High … Continue reading Revision by Landlord against ARC’s adverse judgment – is maintainable