News Updates
"Affected The Right To Livelihood Of The Petitioner U/A 21": Orissa HC Reinstates A Physically Handicapped Teacher Who Was Removed After Appointment
The Orissa High Court has recently reinstated a physically handicapped person who was engaged as a teacher, but was removed later, on the basis of a report of Appellate Board which found him scarcely disabled. While granting relief to the petitioner, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra wrote, "It must be kept in mind that the State is supposed to be a model employer...
"False Assertions Ought To Be Discouraged": PH High Court On Woman's Conduct Of Hiding Job Status, Earning In Maintenance Plea
The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently observed that false assertions should be discouraged by parties while they come tot he Court seeking reliefs. The Court observed thus in connection with a case of a woman who hid her job details and her earnings in a maintenance plea filed by her under Section 125 of CrPC.The bench of Justice Jasjit Singh Bedi observed that the practice of making...
Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: March 14 To March 20, 2022
Nominal Index: Mahantesh v. Netharavati, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 74 Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75 Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd V State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 76 Narendra Prasad P. V N. Sujatha, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 77 Sunil Chajed v State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 78 Navodaya Medical College V. The State Of Karnataka,...
Sanction Order For Prosecution A Public Document U/S 74(1) (iii) Of Indian Evidence Act : Punjab And Haryana High Court
The Punjab and Haryana High Court last week observed that a sanction order (for prosecution) is a public document within the meaning of Section 74(1) (iii) of the Indian Evidence Act and therefore, the certified copy prepared of the same under Section 76/77 of the Evidence Act is admissible in evidence. The Bench of Justice Arvind Singh Sangwan observed thus as it set aside an order...
'Apprehension Must Be Real': Delhi High Court Imposes 25K Cost On Litigant Alleging Judicial Bias Without Any Material
Calling it an extreme example of abuse of process, the Delhi High Court has imposed cost of Rs. 25,000 on a litigant who had accused a Trial Court judge of being biased against him. The High Court opined that the allegations were levelled without any material.Justice C Hari Shankar was of the view that though the standard of bias is one of apprehension rather than of proof, the apprehension...
Can Magistrate Reject Application Filed U/S 313 CrPC Requiring Accused To Explain Evidence Produced Against Him? Gujarat High Court To Examine
The Gujarat High Court is set to examine whether a Magistrate can reject an application filed by the complainant seeking explanation of the accused under Section 313 of CrPC, upon the evidence produced against him.The provision stipulates power of the Court to examine the accused and enable him to personally explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.In the instant case,...
Service Law | Govt. Employees Can't Be Removed From Service Without Following Due Statutory Procedures: Orissa High Court
The Orissa High Court has held that a person cannot be removed from his service without complying the relevant statutory pre-requirements. A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held, "Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the petitioner can be prima-facie held guilty of disobeying the orders of the authority by remaining continuously absent for more than five years, yet...
Form GST DRC-01A Is A Pre-Show Cause Notice Intimation Which Focuses On Reducing Litigation: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court, consisting of Justice Surya Prakash Kesarwani and Justice Jayant Banerji, has ruled that Form GST DRC-01A is a pre-show cause notice intimation which focuses on reducing litigation.The petitioner/assessee submitted that before issuing the notice under Section 74(1) of the CGST Act, 2017 on Form GST DRC 01, the statement as required under Rule 142 (1A) of the...
Tripura High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Constitutionality Of Section 11 Of The Right To Information Act
The Tripura High Court last week dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea which challenged the constitutional validity of Section 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the ground that the same is ultra-vires of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.Essentially, the petitioner was concerned with the 'deplorable' condition of the native and smuggled wildlife species,...
Delhi High Court Weekly Roundup: March 14 To March 20, 2022
CITATIONS 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 202 TO 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 213NOMINAL INDEXJIVANLAL JOITARAM PATEL v. NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 202Mrs. Jayanti Dalmia Versus DCIT 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 203SAVE NIMISHA PRIYA INTERNATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 204STAR INDIA PVT. LTD. & ANR. v. LIVE.FLIXHUB.NET & ORS....
Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) Of Karnataka Land Revenue Act Has Power To Determine Boundary Of A Survey Number Or A Holding: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has said that Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act has power to determine the boundary of a survey number or a holding. The aforesaid power can be exercised in respect of a survey number or a holding irrespective of the fact whether the same is situated within the Municipal limits or outside the municipal limits. A division bench...