Important Case Laws Pronounced Today [Tuesday, 05 June 2018]

1. Amol Mahadeo Mandale v. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court]

Evidence Act, 1872 - Ss. 27 & 65B - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 120B, 147, 148, 149, 302 & 506B - Electronic Evidence - CCTV footages from Hard Disk, CD and DVD - Significant aspects to be noted in respect of electronic evidence produced - Identification of Accused - Unlawful Assembly - Criminal Conspiracy - Chain of the facts and circumstances established.

2. Mudasir Yousuf Bhat v. Union of India [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]

Service Law - Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) Rules, 1955 - Art.311(2)(b) r/w. R.27(ii)(cc) - Dismissal, reduction or removal of persons employed in civil capacities under the State - A constitutional right conferred upon the delinquent under Article 311(2) cannot be dispensed with lightly or arbitrarily. It cannot be used as an alternative and shortcut to the holding of regular inquiry. The decision to dispense with the departmental inquiry cannot be rested solely on the ipse dixit of the delinquent authority. When the satisfaction of the concerned authority is questioned in a Court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of whim or caprice of the concerned officer.

3. Sudhakar Shankar Chavan v. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court]

Evidence Act, 1872 - S. 113B - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 498A, 304B & 306 r/w. 34 - deceased falling in the well - deceased was subjected to cruelty soon before her death in connection with a dowry demand is not established - accidental death is a real possibility.

4. Deoman Sakharam Tayde v. Tilak Rashtriya Vidyalaya [Bombay High Court]

Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 (Maharashtra) - Rr. 36 & 37 - School Tribunal - Order of Termination - Appeal.

5. Abdul Sattar Gousbhai Khanapure v. Municipal Commissioner [Bombay High Court]

Maharashtra Region and Town Planning Act, 1966 - S. 127 - Right accruing to the Petitioner by virtue of the purchase notice cannot be taken away by placing reliance upon a subsequent sanctioned Revised Development Plan which once again reserves the said land for public purpose. This subsequent reservation will have no legal effect.

6. Mahesh Singh Jamwal v. Sheikh Mohd. Aslam [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]

Civil P.C. 1908 - O. 6 R. 17 - Amendment of pleadings - Inconsistent plea can also be raised by the defendants in the written statement although the same may not be permissible in the case of plain.

7. Shreya Milind Nimonkar v. Dr. Seema Shanbhag [National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Impleading & Amendment - Delay - Medical Negligence - Consumer fora should not adopt hyper technical approach while considering amendment application to avoid multiplicity of litigations - mere delay is not a ground for rejecting the amendment.

Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post