April 20, 2018

Today's Important Indian High Courts Cases [Friday, 20th April 2018]

1. Vandana Jain v. Rita Mathur [Delhi High Court]

If there is no loss which is suffered by a seller then there cannot be forfeiture of large amounts which is not a nominal amount, simply because a clause in a contract provides so.

2. Bharatiya Janata Party v. State Election Commission [Calcutta High Court]

The Commission is directed, upon consultation with the State and the major collective stake holders, to issue a fresh Notification extending the day/date for filing nominations

3. Sadhna v. Nirmala Devi [Allahabad High Court]

The Court will not conduct a roving and fishing inquiry while directing recounting of votes and that an order of recounting of votes can be passed if there are material facts pointing out in clear and unambiguous terms the irregularities and a prima facie case is made out.

4. Daya Ram Gupta v. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court]

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 - Non compliance of Sections 50, 55 and 57 of the Act, 1985 creates a doubt in the alleged recovery or contraband from the accused-appellant. There is no evidence to establish proper link between the sample and the recovered material. Non production of ''Malkhana' register and oral or documentary evidence, do create a reasonable doubt in the proper procedure to be followed as per the provisions of the Act, 1985 in the circumstance the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the accused-appellants.

5. Mehrab Khan @Kallu v. State of M.P. [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Whether the crime is committed in furtherance of common intention or not, is a question of fact and is to be ascertained from the evidence brought on record and the appreciation thereof in proper perspective. Facts of two cases cannot be regarded as similar. Common intention can be gathered from the circumstances that are brought on record by the prosecution.

6. Bhura Ram v. State [Rajasthan High Court]

If the termination order was passed on the basis of a criminal case being registered against the delinquent employee, the authority concerned shall be required to conduct a proper enquiry under the CCA Rules.

7. D. Venkatesh v. M.G. Deendayalan [Karnataka High Court]

Various legal proceedings that have been resorted to by the respondents amount to an attempt to entangle the decree holder in a labyrinth of legal proceedings making it a complicated legal quagmire rendering practically the inexecutability of the decree.

8. Budhiman Singh v. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court]

If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence.

9. Nirved Namdeo v. Madhya Pradesh Poorvakshetra Vidhyut Vitaran Company Limited [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Petitioner has not been issued a specific notice regarding blacklisting, which has led to violation of principles of natural justice and in gross violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, and as such the availability of the alternative remedy would not be a bar for entertainment of the present petition and in such circumstances the present petition is maintainable.

10. Revenue Department v. Jiwajirao Sugar Com. Ltd. [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Companies Act, 1956 - S. 446 - Suits stayed on winding up order - An order or decision on an application under Section 446 is clearly an order or decision in the matter of winding up. It is not a mere procedural order, for it affects the valuable right to obtain relief by filing a suit. The order passed in an application under Section 446, is an order finally decides a dispute between the parties or deprives the State of a substantial and important right and is not a mere formal or interlocutory order. An appeal, therefore, lies against such an order or decision under section 446 of the Act.

11. Dilip Mali v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Prima facie, there is direct occular evidence of the injured & the other eye- witness as regards involvement of the applicants and commission of crime. Further, looking to the gravity of offence of attempt to murder, nature of the involvement and the desirability of releasing the accused on bail after they have been convicted for committing a serious offence coupled with the fact that they have undergone less than two years jail sentence, no case is made out for suspending the execution of the jail sentence and releasing the applicants on bail, at this stage.

12. Bherulal v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Court cannot interfere with the concurrent findings of fact until or unless the same are perverse or contrary to material on record.

13. Kaushalya Devi v. Commissioner of Income Tax [Delhi High Court]

Whether the ITAT, on true and proper interpretation of Section 48 (i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was correct in holding that the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- paid by the assessee to A for non-fulfillment of first agreement to sell was not incurred in connection with the transfer of property and, therefore, could not be deducted from the sale consideration for computing long term capital gains ?

14. Mahavir Prasad Rathore v. Lachchhi Ram Patel [Chattisgarh High Court]

Evidence of eye-witness cannot be discarded on the ground that he has not acted or re-acted in a particular way.

15. Altus Group India Private Limited v. Darrameks Hotels & Developers [Delhi High Court]

Private commercial transactions can be terminated by the parties even without assigning any reason, with a reasonable period of notice in terms of a clause in the agreement authorizing such termination. Such termination cannot be challenged even on the grounds of it being malafide.

16. Pritpal Singh v. Union of India [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

The case of petitioner is that on similar facts the criminal prosecution is going on therefore, departmental enquiry should not be proceed with and the final order in the departmental enquiry should not be passed till the criminal case is decided.

17. Sheoshankar v. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 246 - Procedure where accused is not discharged.

18. Marico Ltd v. Jagit Kaur [Delhi High Court]

Before any application for copyright registration can be allowed, the applicant has to seek a no objection from the Registrar of Trademarks. The Registrar has to see as to whether any trademark identical or deceptively similar to such artistic work exists on the Trade Marks Register and then issue a No-Objection letter.

19. Sunada Sangeetha Kala Shale vs Assistant Commissioner [Karnataka High Court]

Undoubtedly, noise pollution is dangerous to human beings. Like air and water pollution, noise pollution needs to be controlled.

20. Omprakash v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 498-A, 294, 506, 34 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Ss. 3, 4 of SC/ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) - Demanded Dowry - Insulting Words regarding Caste - Anticipatory Bail.
Previous Post
Next Post