Ad Section

10 Important Indian Courts Cases Pronounced Today [Friday, September 14, 2018]

1. State of West Bengal v. Dr. Naval Patel [Calcutta High Court]

Contract Law - The notifications impugned are neither unreasonable nor arbitrary. Further, the learned Judge should not have created a new contract between the State and the students by allowing the students to pay the bond amount in five equal annual instalments with the rider that upon payment of the first instalment the respondent authorities will release the documents of the students, e.g., mark sheet, degree/diploma certificate etc.. It is not within the domain of the Court to novate a contract between the two litigating parties.

2. Nirmal @ Lucky v. State [Delhi High Court]

Last Seen Theory - The doctrine of last seen comes into play where the time-gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive together, and the point when the deceased died is so small that the possibility of any person, other than the accused, being the author of the crime becomes absolutely impossible. In that situation, such a circumstance would lead to show that the crime was committed only by the accused and no one else.

3. Hemant Kumar Jalan v. Rajendra Bajoria [Calcutta High Court]

A. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 (a) - So long as the statements in the plaint disclose some sort of a cause of action, the plaint cannot be rejected under O. 7 R. 11(a) of the CPC and it is irrelevant that the plaintiff may fail to prove his case at the trial of the suit.

B. Partnership Act, 1932It is only a partner of a firm who can seek dissolution of the firm. The dissolution of a firm cannot be ordered by the court at the instance of a non-partner.

4. Shyamali Chandra v. Reba Adak [Calcutta High Court]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41 Rule 2 & Order 41 Rule 4 -  Grounds which may be taken in appeal - One of several plaintiffs or defendants may obtain reversal of whole decree where it proceeds on ground common to all - the appeal Court is not bound to confine its decision to the grounds of the objection set forth in the memorandum of appeal provided the respondent is given an opportunity to contest the said grounds.

Joint Property - Even where property is held jointly and any party to the contract agrees to sell such property by agreement then even if the other co-sharer has not joined at least to the extent of his share he is bound to execute the sale deed.

5. S. Nambi Narayanan v. Siby Mathews [Supreme Court of India]

ISRO Spy Case - The appellant, a successful scientist having national reputation, has been compelled to undergo immense humiliation. The lackadaisical attitude of the State police to arrest anyone and put him in police custody has made the appellant to suffer the ignominy. The dignity of a person gets shocked when psycho-pathological treatment is meted out to him. A human being cries for justice when he feels that the insensible act has crucified his self-respect. That warrants grant of compensation under the public law remedy. We are absolutely conscious that a civil suit has been filed for grant of compensation. That will not debar the constitutional court to grant compensation taking recourse to public law. The Court cannot lose sight of the wrongful imprisonment, malicious prosecution, the humiliation and the defamation faced by the appellant.

6. Social Action Forum v. Union of India [Supreme Court of India]

Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 498A - Investigating agency does not abuse the power and arrest people at its whim and fancy - the Director General of Police of each State to ensure that investigating officers who are in charge of investigation of cases of offences under Section 498-A IPC should be imparted rigorous training with regard to the principles stated by this Court relating to arrest.

7. Prakash G. Goyal v. Sayyed Ayaz Ali [Bombay High Court]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Where the rejection of the plaint is sought under provisions of Order VII Rule 11(a) or (d) of Rule 11, there would be no question of granting time to the plaintiff to rectify the defects in the plaint.

8. Kisan National Education Trust v. Prescribed Authority (S.D.M.) [Allahabad High Court]

Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Whether in determining the doubt or dispute regarding elections under Section 25(1)(c), the summary power exercised by the Prescribed Authority to determine the membership would also effect subsequent elections held on the basis of the same electoral college?

10. Nisha Devi v. State [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 4(c) - "charge" includes any head of charge when the charge contains more heads than one. As per Law a charge may be a precise formulation of a specific accusation made against a person of offence alleged to have been committed by him. The main purpose of framing charge is to give intimation to the accused of clear, unambiguous and precise notice of the nature of accusation that the accused is called upon to meet in the course of trial. At the time of framing charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground to proceed against the accused and Court is not required to appreciate whether the material produced is sufficient or not for convicting the accused.