April 25, 2018

10 Important Indian High Courts Cases Pronounced Today [Tuesday, 25th April 2018]

1. N. Munianjappa v. G. Manjunatha [Karnataka High Court]

Representation of People's Act, 1951 - S. 81 - The caste certificate relied by the respondent No.1 is by playing fraud and as such the respondent No.1 was not qualified to contest the election from the constituency reserved for Schedule Caste. Hence the acceptance of the nomination of the respondent No.1 is illegal and has materially effected the election result.

2. Sant Kumar Netam v. State [Chattisgarh High Court]

The fall in price of tendu patta for the year 2018 is not on account of any illegality or corruption of the Federation or its officers nor as a result of cartelization, but is purely based on market condition or market forces.

3. National Highways Autnhority of India v. Intercontinental Consultant Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. [Delhi High Court]

Interpretation of a contract is within the domain of the arbitrator.

4. Sudhir Vohra v. Registrar of Companies [Delhi High Court]

Architects Act, 1972 - No unregistered Limited Liability Partnership (LLP), company or person, can use the title/style of architect or derivatives thereof or use the same in their names - Companies or LLPs, which include providing architectural services as one of their objectives, can be incorporated without an approval/NOC from the Council of Architecture (COA).

5. Ram Naresh v. State of U.P. [Allahabad High Court]

Evidence Law - Child Witness - Deposition of a child witness may require corroboration, but in case his deposition inspires the confidence of the court and there is no embellishment or improvement therein, the court may rely upon his/her evidence. The evidence of a child witness must be evaluated more carefully with greater circumspection because he is susceptible to tutoring. Only in case there is evidence on record to show that a child has been tutored, the Court can reject his statement partly or fully. However, an inference as to whether child has been tutored or not, can be drawn from the contents of his/her deposition.

6. Sree Shanthosh Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. State Bank of India [Madras High Court]

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be entertained, if alternative statutory remedy is available.

7. Balakrishnan v State Government of Tamil Nadu [Madras High Court]

Sympathy for the weaker section does not enable the Court to ignore the law or act in contravention of the law.

8. Monu @ Sourabh Kumar Chaturvedi v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Scheduled Castes and Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - S. 3(1)(x) - Victim is Project Officer - The insult and intimidation was directed against the Project Officer arising out of victim's resistence in allowing joining of sister-in- law of the accused - Insult and intimidation was directed against the Project Officer and not against the SC / ST status / capacity of the Project Officer - Thus offence u/s 3(1) (x) not made out even on prima facie basis.

9. Rajasthan Rajya Sahkari Upbhok vs Labour Court [Rajasthan High Court]

Labour Law - Award is based on appreciation of evidence - in the entire writ petition there is no pleading as to what evidence has been overlooked by the labour Court or in what manner the finding of fact arrived at by the labour Court is perverse - Each and every ground raised is vague - It is not pleaded as to in what manner the award is perverse - no merit in the appeal which is dismissed.

10. Munni Devi v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 438 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 304B/34 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Ss. 3/4 - Anticipatory Bail Application - direct allegations against mother-in-law, father-in-law, husband and younger brother-in-law. It is not that a long troupe of relatives related or unrelated have been impleaded as a party. Besides casualty has taken place within six months of marriage, therefore, presumption has to be drawn against the immediate relatives - applicant has failed to demonstrate any separate residence for herself - Under such facts and circumstances, this application fails and is dismissed.
Previous Post
Next Post