April 13, 2018

21 Important Indian High Courts Cases Pronounced Today [Friday, 13th April 2018]

1. Geeta Tiwari v. Shanti Dhruwe [Chattisgarh High Court]

An elected member performs his duty as a role model in the public so that people may follow him. If they fail to do their duty in its true spirit, the local governance would become a mockery.

2. Tej Pratap Singh v. Union of India [Delhi High Court]

Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy rights of parties, but to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek their remedy promptly.

3. Ashok v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

To hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to show that he had fraudulent or dishonest intention at the time of making the promise.

4. Jitendra Singh Shakya v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Mass Copying - Where vast majority of candidates were found to have resorted to use of unfair means in any examination then it is not necessary for the concerned Institute to give any show cause notice to any individual candidate before cancellation of his result.

5. Dr. Ashfaq @ Nehal vs Union of India [Allahabad High Court]

Preventive Detention - Even a slight insistence on the strictness about pleading is not the rule and it is the State's burden to explain, once a rule nisi is issued that the Detention Order is squarely and completely within the four corners of the law under which it has been made.

6. Mohammad Akbar v. State [Chattisgarh High Court]

The inclusion of Parliamentary Secretary in the Schedule to the Chhattisgarh Vidhan Mandal Sadasya Nirarhata Nivaran Adhiniyam, 1967 is not liable to be declared void and inoperative.

7. Coal India Limited v. R. K. Gupta [Delhi High Court]

Right to receive pension accrues month to month and denial thereof would give a fresh cause of action which is recurring in nature. Delay on the part of the pensioner in approaching the Court was itself not sufficient to reject his claim.

8. Rakesh Kumar Kaushal v. State [Himachal Pradesh High Court]

Object of the bail is to secure the attendance of the accused in the trial and the proper test to be applied in the solution of the question whether bail should be granted or refused is whether it is probable that the party will appear to take his trial.

9. Shiv Prasad v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Last-seen theory comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.

10. Shiv Prasad Uikley v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

General powers are vested with the Collector to suspend or inflict minor punishment to all class-III and class-IV employees of all the departments (except police workers).

11. Vasumati Mahajan v. South Delhi Municipal Corporation [Delhi High Court]

A Writ, Order and/or Direction in the nature of PROHIBITION, inter alia restraining from granting any permission to open any school, including any Pre-Primary School / Montessori Preschool / Daycare, from ground floor and /or basement of property bearing no. E-68, Vasant Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.

12. Rekha Singh v. Union of India [Allahabad High Court]

Petitioner had continuously worked as Assistant Director of the Institute of Correspondence Course and Continuing Education (ICC&CE) a Self-Financing Institute of the University of Allahabad from November, 2014 till her retirement in 2017, there is no justification not to pay her salary/remuneration admissible to her otherwise it would amount to Begar which is not only prohibited under Article 23 of the Constitution of India but is also punishable.

13. Maharani v. State [Allahabad High Court]

To bring home charges under Section 304B IPC, the following questions need to be decided - death of the deceased occurred within 7 years of her marriage with the accused - accused demanded dowry and they subjected the deceased to torture and cruelty for non fulfillment of dowry demand -  deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death and for that reason she committed suicide.

14. Sunshine Steel Industries v. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court]

The matter is of civil nature especially of accounting which can be decided by the evidence of the parties and dragging the matter before the criminal court is nothing but an abuse of the process of law.

15. Parvesh Pathak v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

The purpose of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is to advance cause of justice and to check the abuse of process of law.

16. Prabhat Kumar Dwivedi v. Union of India [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

When employee raised objection about date of birth after an unreasonable period and then approached this Court with further unreasonable delay, no relief is due to the petitioner.

17. Raghvendra Singh v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Whether qualification of Uttar Madhyama Certificate Examination from M.P. Sanskrit Board, Bhopalam can be treated to be equivalent to Class 12th of Higher Secondary Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Madhy Paradesh, Bhopal ?

18. Mohammad Akbar v. D. D. Singh [Chattisgarh High Court]

The participation of any person, other than as a Member of Legislative Assembly in the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly is a matter which will stand regulated by the Rules of Business of that House, the master of which is the Speaker.

19. Deliram v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

To invoke exception 4 of Section 300 of the I.P.C. four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.

20. Manjit Singh v. Sajjansingh [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Constitution of India - Article 226 - Correctional jurisdiction can be exercised in cases where orders have been passed in grave dereliction of duty or in flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice.

21. Ramji Yadav v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Whether recovery from retired Class III employees can be made on the basis of alleged over payments ?
Previous Post
Next Post