Know the Law
S 156(3) & 202 CrPC : Supreme Court Explains Differences Between Powers Of Magistrate At Pre-Cognizance & Post-Cognizance Stages
In a recent judgment(Kailash Vijayvargiya v. Rajlakshmi Chaudhuri and others), the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices MR Shah and Sanjiv Khanna explained the distinction between the power of a Magistrate to direct registration of an FIR and investigation at a pre-cognizance stage under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), and the proceedings under Chapter...
Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha Disqualification: Legal Position On Suspension Of Conviction | Explainer
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi was recently disqualified from his position as a Member of Parliament after his conviction in a defamation case. He was disqualified in accordance with Article 102(1)(e) of the Indian Constitution read with Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.He has filed an appeal in Surat Sessions Court to challenge his conviction in the defamation case. While...
Section 52 TP Act -Alienation Of Suit Property Pendente Lite Not Invalid; But It'll Be Subject To Rights Of Litigants : Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has observed that the principle of "lis pendens" is based on "justice, equity and good conscience" and the same will apply even in a case where the provisions of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act is not applicable in the strict sense.A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and CT Ravikumar explained that though the doctrine of "lis pendens" will not invalidate the...
Section 27 of Evidence Act For More Lucidity
Read this in continuation of the Article “Section 27” Of The Evidence Act And The Verdict In “Pulukuri Kottaya” Continue To Elude The Comprehension Of Many Judges At All Levels"If the “information” to be received from an accused person in the custody of a Police Officer should be regarding a “fact discovered”, ANDIf the words...
Can Foreigners Seek Information From Authorities In India Under RTI Act? Explained
Section 3 of the Right To Information Act states all the citizens shall have the right to information. While dealing with a case related to the RTI request of a Tibetan refugee, the Delhi High Court this week considered the question whether a non-citizen or a foreigner can also seek information under the RTI Act.Justice Pratibha M. Singh said that it would be inherently contradictory to hold...
Article 226(2) - Supreme Court Explains Tests To Determine If Cause Of Action Has Arisen Within Jurisdiction Of High Court
In a notable judgment explaining the concept of 'cause of action' under Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court held that only those facts, which are relevant to the grant of the relief, will give rise to 'cause of action'. Applying this principle, the Court held that a company cannot challenge a GST notification issued by one state before a High Court located in...
NI Act| Company's Authorized Signatory Not "Drawer" Of Cheque, Not Liable To Pay Interim Compensation Under Sec.143A : Bombay High Court
The Bombay High Court recently held that authorised signatory of a company who signs a cheque on its behalf is not the "drawer" of the cheque and hence such signatory is not liable to pay interim compensation under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in a case for dishonour of cheque."The signatory of the cheque, authorized by the "Company", is not the drawer in terms of...
Compassionate Appointment : Supreme Court Summarises Principles
The Supreme Court, recently, held that since compassionate appointment is not a vested right. A claim for compassionate appointment by the dependent of the deceased employee may not be entertained after a lapse of a considerable period since the death. The Court opined - “...the operation of a policy/scheme for compassionate appointment is founded on considerations of immediacy. A sense...
Section 313 CrPC : Supreme Court Summarises 10 Well-Settled Principles
Recently, the Supreme Court briefly summarised the settled principles with respect to Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The provision deals with the power to examine the accused. The Trial Court is vested with the power to put questions to the accused at any stage of the trial to enable them to explain any circumstances appearing in evidence against him. It is the duty of the Court...
“Section 27” Of The Evidence Act And The Verdict In “Pulukuri Kottaya” Continue To Elude The Comprehension Of Many Judges At All Levels
A “confession” made to a “police officer”, by a person (presently or subsequently) accused of an offence cannot be proved against him and is, therefore, inadmissible in evidence before a Court of law in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“Evidence Act” for short). Similarly, a confession by a person (presently or subsequently) accused of an offence and made...
Explained: What Happens To Order Of Conviction When Juvenility Of Accused Is Proved Under Juvenile Justice Act?
Under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, a person accused of an offence at any stage can raise a claim that he or she was a minor on the date of the commission of offence. The court is legally bound to order an inquiry to determine the age and if the claim of juvenility is proved, the accused is to be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board for appropriate...