Editorials       Cover Story   Letters
 Subscribe Now  Contact Us
Search  
 
Book Reviews
Case Study
Constitution of India
Cover Story
Crime File
Cyber Space
Good Living
Harvard Law School
Health & Fitness
Permanent Imprint Leading
   Cases
Know Your Judge
The Law and The Celebrity
Legal Articles
Legal Events
Law for Other Species
Law School Confidential
Legal Scanner
Legal Trotternama
Media Scan
Potpourri
Reasoning The Reasons
Street Lawyer
Study Abroad
Supreme Court Cases
Thinkers & Theory
Top Law Schools
Universal Law of Success
--------------- Print Magazine --------------
 
  May 2016
 
  April 2016
 
 
 
 
Supreme Court Judgements
Latest SC Judgements

INTRODUCTION OF BILL: Courts precluded from interfering

In this regard, we may profitably refer to the authority in Mohd. Saeed Siddiqui v. State of U.P., wherein a three Judge Bench while dealing with such a challenge, held that Article 212 precludes the courts from interfering with the presentation of a Bill for assent to the Governor on the ground of non- compliance with the procedure for passing Bills, or for otherwise questioning the Bills passed by the House , for proceedings inside the legislature cannot be called into question on the ground that they have not been carried on in accordance with the Rules of Business. Thereafter, the Court referring to Article 199(3) ruled that the decision of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly that the Bill in question was a Money Bill is final and the said decision cannot be disputed nor can the procedure of the State Legislature be questioned by virtue of Article 212. The Court took note of the decision in Raja Ram Pal wherein it has been held that the proceedings which may be tainted on account of substantive or gross irregularity or unconstitutionality are not protected from judicial scrutiny. Eventually, the Court repelled the challenge.

Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal and others v. State of Bihar and others , Criminal Appeal No. 6448 -52/ 11, d ecided on 10-12-2015 [Anil R Dev and Deepak Mishra, JJ.]

DOWRY AND TRADITIONAL PRESENTS GIVEN IN WEDDING: No dominion of parents-in-law of bride

Giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or about the time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption that such a property was thereby entrusted and put under the dominion of the parents-in-law of the bride or other close relations so as to attract ingredients of section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In respect of "stridhana articles" given to the bride, one has to take into consideration the common practice that these articles are sent along with the bride to her matrimonial house. It is a matter of common knowledge that these articles are kept by the woman in connection with whose marriage it was given and used by her in her matrimonial house. w hen Appellants 2 to 6 have been residing separately in Vizianagaram, it cannot be said that the dowry was given to them and that they were duty-bound to return the same to Syamala Rani. Facts and circumstances of the case and also the uncontroverted allegations made in the complaint do not constitute an offence under section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against Appellants 2 to 6 and there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against Appellants 2 to 6.

Bobbili Ramakrishna Raja Yadad and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh , Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2016, d ecided on 19-1-2016 [Dr. T.S. Thakur CJI and Dr. A.K. Sikri and Banumathi, JJ.]

REINVESTIGATION: Extraordinary Power of Constitutional Courts

The extraordinary power of constitutional courts in directing CBI to conduct re-investigation in a case must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations, when it is necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigation or where incident may have national or international ramifications or where such order may be necessary for doing complete justice and for enforcing fundamental rights. Each of the determinants is complete and independent by itself to justify exercise of such power and is not interdependent on each other. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the CBI was unhesitatingly entrusted with the task of undertaking a de novo investigation in the incident of murder of appellant's husband.

Pooja Pal v. Union of India and others , Criminal Appeal No. 77 of 2016, d ecided on 22-1-2016 [V. Gopala Gowda and Amitava Roy, JJ.]

Second FIR: No question of further investigation

The substance of the allegations in the said two FIRs is different. The first FIR deals with the offences punishable under sections 3,4,5, 6 and 7 of the Act, whereas, the second FIR deals with the offences punishable under sections 419 and 420 IPC which are alleged to have been committed during the course of investigation of the case in the first FIR. This Court is of the view that the alleged offences under the second FIR in substance are distinct from the offences under the first FIR and they cannot, in any case, said to be in the form of the part of same transaction with the alleged offences under the first FIR. Therefore , no question of further investigation could be made by investigating agency on the alleged offences arisen as the term "further investigation" occurred under sub-section (8) to section 173 CrPC connotes the investigation of the case in continuation of the earlier investigation with respect to which the charge-sheet has already been filed.

Awadesh Kumar Jha Alias Akhilesh Kumar Jha and another v. State of Bihar , Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2016, d ecided on 7-1-2016 [Dr. T.S. Thakur, CJI and V. Gopala Gowda, J.]

TRANSFER OF POLICY IN CASE OF TRANSFER OF VEHICLE: Liability of insurer continues

On reading together the provisions of sections 147 and 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it leaves no room for any doubt that there is deemed transfer of policy in case of transfer of vehicle. Hence, liability of the insurer continues notwithstanding the contract of transfer of vehicle. Such contractual liability cannot be said to be excluded by virtue of the second proviso to section 147(1) of the MV Act, 1988. A hire- purchase agreement, an agreement for lease or an agreement for hypothecation are covered under section 2(30) of the MV Act, 1988. By virtue of the said provision, under the said agreements, the person in possession of the vehicle is considered to be an owner of the vehicle. In case such contractual liability is excluded then anomalous results would occur and financier under hire- purchase agreement would be held liable and so on. Therefore, an agreement for lease on hire cannot be said to be a contract envisaged for exclusion under contractual liability in the second proviso to section 147(1) of the 1988 Act. The High Court has erred in holding otherwise.

Managing Director, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. New India Assurance Company Limited and another, Civil Appeal No. 5293 of 2010, d ecided on 27-10-2015 [H.L. Dattu, CJI and Arun Mishra, J.]

 
 
LAWYERS UPDATE
(Print Version)
Rs. 600/- per year
(Registered Post & Courier)
     
 

New Releases by UNIVERSAL's

     To avail discounts and for more details write to us at marketing.in@lexisnexis.com

Home     :      About Us     :      Subscribe     :      Advertise With Us    :       Privacy     :      Copyright     :      Feedback     :      Contact Us

Copyright © Universal Book Traders. All material on this site is subject to copyright. All rights reserved.
No part of this material may be reproduced, transmitted, framed or stored in a retrieval system for public or private
use without the written permission of the publisher. This site is developed and maintained by Universal Legal Infosolutions.
Powered by: Universal Book Traders