8 Important Indian High Courts Cases Pronounced Today [Monday, 16th April 2018]

1. J&K Bank Limited v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]

Continuation of the workmen in temporary / contractual capacity for years together despite availability of vacant posts was aimed at depriving them of the status and privileges of the permanent workmen and, therefore, would clearly amount to unfair labour practice.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2H5I99r
Bench : Jammu
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ramalingam Sudhakar, Chief Justice(Acting) & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar, Judge
Case Number : LPAOW No.96/2013 & Connected Cases
Judgment by : Sanjeev Kumar, J.

2. Suresh Kumar Aarsay v. State of M.P. [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Service Law - Judicial Service - Departmental Enquiry - Additional District Judge - Compulsory Retirement - Scope of Judicial Review - Rules and Orders (Criminal) - Rule 180 - Witnesses were being examined in the absence of the petitioner as Presiding Officer - Evidence was being recorded during his absence in the Court by the Process Writer, which was being dictated by the Assistant Government Pleader - order of punishment of compulsory retirement is not disproportionate or shocking to conscience and hence, the order of punishment and dismissal of appeal/ representation does not warrant any interference.

Judgment Link : http://bit.ly/2qEBacr
Bench : Jabalpur
Coram : Hon'ble Shri Justice Hemant Gupta, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Shri Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla, Judge.
Case Number : W.P. No.13437/2016
Judgment by : Vijay Kumar Shukla, J.

3. Chhabi Lal v. State [Chattisgarh High Court]

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 304B & 498A - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - deceased had complained him only against her husband that he was making demand for television and fridge - Evidence regarding "soon before her death" the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for demand of dowry is also not available on record - offence alleged is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgment by: Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
Case Number : Criminal Appeal No.1128 of 2001

4. All India Trinamool Congress v. Bharatiya Janata Party [Calcutta High Court]

West Bengal Panchayat Elections of 2018 - Single Judge to decide the writ petition as expeditiously as possible, particularly in the light of the last observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 11th April, 2018, and if required, upon conducting day-to-day hearing without granting any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

Present: The Hon'ble Justice Biswanath Somadder And The Hon'ble Justice Arindam Mukherjee
Case Number : MAT 364 of 2018 with CAN 2199 of 2018 & Connected Cases
Judgment by : Biswanath Somadder, J.

5. State of M.P. v. Khankan [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Although, benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the accused, the Court should not at the same time reject evidence which is ex facie trustworthy, on grounds which are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures.

Bench : Jabalpur
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice S.K.Gangele, Judge Hon'ble Smt. Justice Anjuli Palo, Judge
Case Number : CRA No. 1175/2003
Judgment by : Anjuli Palo, J

6. Dr. Muqarab Hussain v. State [Jammu & Kashmir High Court] 

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 304A - Medical Negligence - Inquiry Officer has gone into the minutest details of the case and has reported that no case of negligence is made out against the petitioners - occurrence has taken place in 2005 - the sword of Damocles has been kept hanging high on the heads of the petitioners during this period and their fate has been kept hanging like that of a "Trishunka" - FIR is quashed.

Bench : Srinagar
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.K. Hanjura, Judge.
Case Number : Pet u/s 561-A No. 285 / 2014

7. Laborate Pharmaceuticals India Ltd. v. State [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Ss. 18 & 27 - the shelf life of the drug had to expire after a month subsequent to the date of filing the Complaint - no reason has been spelt out for not sending the fourth sample for retesting - Complaint cannot sustain in the eyes of law and giving an additional lease of life to it will be a sheer abuse of the process of law and to whip a dead horse.

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Ss. 18 & 27 - Sample admittedly remained in the custody of the Government Analyst 19 months - chances of the tampering of the sample cannot be ruled out - under what conditions was the sample stored in the laboratory and whether the sample could remain free from any defect during this interregnum has also not been spelt out anywhere - complaint are quashed.

Bench :  Srinagar
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.K. Hanjura, Judge.
Case Number : Pet u/s 561-A No. 142/2010, MP No. 157/2010

8. Kamal Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar [Patna High Court]

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Ss. 13(2) & 13(1)(d) - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 389 (1) - Criminal Court Rules - Rule 267 - High Court directs the accused to deposit the fine of Rs. 1,75,000 (One Lac Seventy Five Thousand) during course of directing suspension of sentence as well as release on bail till pendency of the appeal.

Coram: Honourable Mr. Justice Aditya Kumar Trivedi
Case Number : Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.582 of 2018

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post