CHANDRAPAL Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (EARLIER M.P.) Supreme - 27/05/2022 (A) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Section 34 - (B) Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities), Act, 1989, Section 3(2)(v) |
Mamta & Anr Vs The State (NCT of Delhi) & Anr Supreme - 24/05/2022 (A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 173 - Report of police officer on completion of Investigation (B) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 302, Section 201, Section 34, Section 364A, Section 363 - Punishment for murder - Causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offender - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention - Kidnapping for ransom, etc - Punishment for kidnapping |
AARAV JAIN Vs THE BIHAR PUBLIC
SERVICE COMMISSION & ORS. Supreme - 23/05/2022 Cancellation of candidature on technical ground Recruitment for post of civil judge Candidature of 8 candidates (Appellants) who had scored higher marks than the last selected candidates in their respective categories, was cancelled by the commission in a meeting dt. 27.11.2019, as they did not submit their original documents A perusal of the minutes of meeting dt. 27.11.2019 and specific averments in the petitions, show that self-attested copies of the certificates required were submitted by the appellants at the time of their interview and even originals were submitted before the meeting on 27.11.2019 - These facts were not disputed by the respondents In the advertisement for any government employment, there is always a clause that if information given in the certificate/testimonies furnished by any candidate is found to be incorrect at a later stage, during any enquiry, the candidature of candidates can be cancelled - It was not the case of the respondent that the certificates submitted by the appellants were incorrect. Held, in view of the aforesaid facts, cancellation of candidature on a technical ground of not producing original certificate at the time of interview was unjustified. Appellants had scored higher marks than the marks obtained by the last selected candidates in respective categories. (Paras 9, 15)
RELIEF - Recruitment for post of civil judge Cancellation of candidature of 8 appellants on technical ground, found to be unjust What relief can be given to them Out of 8 candidates, 5 were from general category and 3 were from EBC, SC and BC category. Held, as there are five vacancies available under general category, general category appellants shall be accommodated against the same. As regards three candidates belonging to EBC, SC and BC category, State may either adjust them against future vacancies or borrow three posts from future vacancies, one each in respective categories. This would amount to varying the vacancies of the concerned advertisement but such a power always vests in the employer. Therefore, it is left to the discretion of the State to deal with this aspect either in the manner mentioned above or any other mode which it may deem fit. However, appointment/selection of already serving Judicial officers appointed against the Advertisement shall not be affected. Appellants would be entitled to their respective seniority as per their merit but they would not be given arrears of salary for the intervening period. They would be entitled to the same from the date of their joining. All incremental and other benefits of the intervening period would be notionally available to them. (Paras 17-19)
Recruitment for post of civil judge Seven recommended candidates either did not appear for counselling or did not join service - As a result 7 vacancies fell vacant - Apart from this candidature of 8 candidates (appellants) was also cancelled - Swati, a candidate from unreserved category in the waiting list, filed a writ petition praying for appointment against the vacancies which was allowed - SLP there-against was dismissed - Meanwhile in matters of appellants, Supreme Court passed interim order dt. 23.07.2021 providing that 3 posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) be kept vacant till the disposal of the instant petition - Similar interim orders were passed on 08.10.2021 (for keeping 4 posts vacant) and on 07.02.2022 (for keeping one post vacant) - Thereafter, Intervenor Jyoti filed a writ petition for appointment against vacancies - Same was allowed by Division Bench on 09.02.2022, directing State Government to send the requisition for all the posts which had remained vacant due to non-joining of the recommended candidates - Whether such a direction given by Division bench was justified - Whether Jyoti could pray for giving effect to such directions, by claiming parity with Swati. Held, no. The Judgment dt. 09.02.2022 and the directions given therein were in direct conflict to the interim orders passed by Supreme Court. BPSC has already moved an application to modify the said judgment which is still pending. Thus, the application filed by Jyoti could not be allowed nor could she claim parity or any benefit from the judgment of Swati, which was passed much before the impugned judgment of Division Bench or the interim orders passed by Supreme Court. (Paras 22-29) |
M/s Knit Pro International Vs The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. Supreme - 20/05/2022 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 156(3) - Police officers power to Investigate cognizable case
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 420 - Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property
(C) Copyright Act, 1957-Section 64, -Section 63, -Section 65, -Section 51 - Power of police to seize infringing copies - Offence of Infringement of copyright or other rights conferred by this Act - Possession of plates for purpose of making infringing copies - When copyright infringed Any
person who
knowingly infringes or abets the infringement of
(
a) the copyright in a work, or
(b) any other right conferred by this Act, except
the right conferred by section 53A except the right
conferred by section 53A shall be punishable with
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than
six months but which may extend to three years and
with fine which shall not be less than fifty thousand
rupees but which may extend to two lakh rupees:
Provided that where the infringement has not been
made for gain in the course of trade or business the
court may, for adequate and special reasons to be
mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of
imprisonment for a term of less than six months or a
fine of less than fifty thousand rupees.
Explanation Construction
of a building or other
structure which infringes or which, if completed, would
infringe the copyright in some other work shall not be
an offence under this section."
II - CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES AGAINST OTHER LAWS
Offence
Cognizable or
noncognizable
Bailable or
noncognizable
By what
court triable
If punishable
with death,
imprisonment
for life, or
imprisonment
for more than
7 years
Cognizable
Nonbailable
Court of
Session
If punishable
with
imprisonment
for 3 years
and upwards
but not more
than 7 years.
Cognizable
Nonbailable
Magistrate of
the first class
If punishable
with
imprisonment
for less than
3 years or
with fine
only.
Noncognizable
Bailable
Any
Magistrate
5.3 Thus, for the offence under Section 63 of the Copyright
Act, the punishment provided is imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than six months but which may
extend to three years and with fine. |
Agra Development Authority, Agra Vs Anek Singh and others Supreme - 20/05/2022 Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013Section 24(2) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.13927 of 2016
by which the High Court has allowed the said writ petition
preferred by the respondents herein original writ petitioners and
has held that the acquisition proceedings with respect to the land
in question shall be deemed to have lapsed under Subsection
(2)
of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 2013'),
the Agra Development Authority, Agra has preferred the present
appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties.
We have perused and considered the impugned judgment and
order passed by the High Court.
3. Before the High Court it was the specific case on behalf of
the Agra Development Authority - appellant herein that as such
the possession of the land in question was already taken over
and even the name of the Authority was mutated in the revenue
records. |
Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authorityand Anr. Vs Ram Newaj and others Supreme - 20/05/2022 Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013Section 24, Section 24(2) 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
judgment and order dated 19.07.2017 passed by the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow in
Miscellaneous Bench No.3962 of 2005 by which the High Court
has allowed the said writ petition preferred by the respondents
herein original writ petitioners and has held that the
acquisition proceedings in respect of the three plots in question
pertaining to the original writ petitioners stand lapsed under subsection
(2) of Section 24 of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act 2013') ,
the Ayodhya Faizabad Development Authority and another has
preferred the present appeal.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties at
length. |
DEEPAK YADAV Vs STATE OF U.P. & ANR. Supreme - 20/05/2022 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-Section 439(1) - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302, -Section 34 - Punishment for murder - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention The
considerations being:
(a) While granting bail the court has to keep in mind not only
the nature of the accusations, but the severity of the
punishment, if the accusation entails a conviction and the
nature of evidence in support of the accusations.
(b) Reasonable apprehensions of the witnesses being
tampered with or the apprehension of there being a threat for
the complainant should also weigh with the court in the
matter of grant of bail.
(c) While it is not expected to have the entire evidence
establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt but there ought always to be a prima facie satisfaction
of the court in support of the charge.
(d) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and
it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be
considered in the matter of grant of bail, and in the event of
there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the
prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is
entitled to an order of bail."
25. Similarly, the parameters to be taken into consideration for grant of bail
by the courts has been described in Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. |
|
KARNATAKA POWER CORPORATION Vs EMTA COAL LIMITED & ANR. Supreme - 20/05/2022 Constitution of India-Article 136 - Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court 1. The present Civil Appeals, by way of Special Leave, arise out
of the impugned common judgment dated 24.03.2016 passed by
the High Court of Karnataka, at Bengaluru, whereby the High
Court allowed the writ petitions filed by the respondents herein.
By way of the writ petitions, the respondents had challenged the
adverse decisions taken by the appellant with respect to the
arrangement regarding coal procurement entered into by the
parties for the purposes of the appellant's thermal power projects
in the State of Karnataka.
2. A conspectus of the facts necessary for the disposal of the
present appeal is as follows: the appellant was allotted coal mines
by the Union of India for captive consumption for their thermal
power projects in the State of Karnataka. |
 | Loading… |
|