|
IMPORTANT DECISIONS
 Additional accused - Newly added accused has right to cross examine witnesses who were examined before framing of charge. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 412 (S.C.)
Admission made in a criminal case - Confronted with the same in civil suit - Admitted the same - Such admission is admissible in evidence. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 548 (S.C.)
Arbitration agreement - Once the contract is concluded orally or in writing, the mere fact that a formal contract has to be prepared and initialed by the parties would not affect either the acceptance of the contract so entered into or implementation thereof, even if the formal contract has never been initialed. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 505 (S.C.)
Arbitration clause in Will - Not an arbitration agreement. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 403 (S.C.)
Auction sale - Limitation to set aside - Stands extended when stay is granted - Stay whether obtained by J.D. or by any other person is not relevant - Relevant question is whether J.D. could have taken steps in the proceedings which were stayed. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 533 (S.C.)
Cheating - Can be committed in the commercial as well as money transactions. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 531 (S.C.)
Civil & Criminal liability - Merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 531 (S.C.)
Defective investigation - Failure of investigating agency cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of the victim. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 464 (S.C.)
Dishonour of cheque - Complaint on the basis of second notice - Barred - Cause of action to file complaint on non-payment despite issue of notice, arises once. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 480 (S.C.)
Dying declaration - Medical certificate of fitness - Not required when dying declaration is recorded by Magistrate. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 499 (S.C.)
Extra judicial confession made while accused was brought to Court for extension of judicial remand - Accused could not probabilise his defence that he was in custody of police officer - Confessional statement not made to the hearing of police officer - Held, it is not probablised by the defence that the accused was in custody of police officer while he had made extra judicial confession. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 424 (S.C.)
Facts deposed - u/s 27 if not voluntary, then it will not be admissible and will be hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 570 (S.C.)
Hindu Law - Co-parcener can sell his undivided share - However, possession cannot be delivered unless the property is partitioned by metes and bounds. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 585 (S.C.)
Medical negligence - A mere deviation from normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 445 (S.C.)
Medical negligence - Doctors in complicated case have to take chance even if the rate of survival is low. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 445 (S.C.)
Medical negligence - When doctors perform their duties and exercise an ordinary degree of professional skill and competence, they cannot be held guilty of medical negligence. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 445 (S.C.)
Purchase of insurance stamps from outside the State - Offence causing loss to State Exchequer - It is legally untenable to contend that the insurance stamps must be purchased from within the State - Proceedings quashed. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 483 (S.C.)
Rape - There is no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 418 (S.C.)
S.92 CPC - State amendment whereby Court other than District Court also conferred jurisdiction u/s 92 CPC - District Court and Court notified by State Govt. will have concurrent jurisdiction without reference to any pecuniary limits - Provision of a State Act specifying the pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts do not apply to a suit u/s 92 CPC. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 420 (S.C.)
Service - Departmental enquiry - Employee is entitled to all the relevant statement, documents and other materials to enable him to have reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the department enquiry against the charges. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 469 (S.C.)
Service - Departmental enquiry - Non disclosure of documents having a potential to cause - Amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to submit a plausible and effective rebuttal to the charges. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 469 (S.C.)
SUBJECT INDEX
Age
Age - Proof - Certificate issued by Municipal Council on the basis of record which was maintained by its predecessor the Gram Panchayat - Certificate issued by Municipal Council cannot be discarded on the ground that employee's birth took place prior to constitution of municipal council. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 441 (S.C.)
Arbitration Act, 1940
Arbitration Act, 1940, S.30 - Arbitration award - Objections - High Court erroneously substituted its own opinion on appreciation of evidence - Held, such a course is not permissible while examining objections to the award u/s 30 of the Act. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 436 (S.C.)
Arbitration Act, 1940, S.30(a) - Arbitration award - Objections - Non application of mind by the Arbitrator to the material before him - Amounts to misconduct on the part of Arbitrator - Award set aside - A new Arbitrator appointed and matter remitted for fresh decision. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 478 (S.C.)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.7 - Arbitration clause in Will or in a subsequent declaration regarding arbitration in case of any dispute qua Will - Not an arbitration agreement - Such a wish expressed in a declaration cannot be construed as an agreement in writing between the parties to the dispute agreeing to refer their dispute to arbitration. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 403 (S.C.)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Ss.8, 11, 15(2) - Pendency of application u/s 8 of the Act - Not a bar for appointment of an arbitrator u/s 11 or S.15(2) of the Act - Arbitrator so appointed can proceed with the arbitration - Furthermore during pendency of an appeal against order dismissing application U.O.7.R.11 CPC on the ground that dispute requires to be settled by Arbitration, an arbitrator can be appointed. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 403 (S.C.)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.11(6) - Arbitration - Appointment - Arbitration agreement - In the absence of signed agreement between the parties, it would be possible to infer from various documents duly approved and signed by the parties in the form of exchange of e-mails, letter, telex, telegrams and other means of tele-communication. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 505 (S.C.)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.11(6) - Arbitrator - Appointment - Arbitration agreement - Intention of parties has to be considered in order to conclude whether parties were ad idem as far as adopting arbitration as a method of dispute resolution was concerned - Minor differences do not affect the intention of parties - Plea that in the absence of signed contract, the arbitration clause cannot be relied upon is liable to be rejected. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 505 (S.C.)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.11(6) - Arbitrator - Appointment - Arbitration agreement - Once the contract is concluded orally or in writing, the mere fact that a formal contract has to be prepared and initialed by the parties would not affect either the acceptance of the contract so entered into or implementation thereof, even if the formal contract has never been initialed. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 505 (S.C.)
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.11(6) - Arbitrator - Appointment - Arbitration agreement - Unless an inference can be drawn from the facts that the parties intended to be bound only when a formal agreement had been executed, the validity of the agreement would not be affected by its lack of formality. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 505 (S.C.)
Chance witness
Chance witness - Conduct of chance witness, subsequent to the incident may also be taken into consideration particularly as to whether he has informed anyone else in the village about the incident. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 589 (S.C.)
Chance witness - Evidence of a chance witness requires a very cautious and close scrutiny and a chance witness must adequately explain his presence at the place of occurrence. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 589 (S.C.)
Circumstantial evidence
Circumstantial evidence - Facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference from circumstantial evidence must be clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt - All links in the chain of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they must exclude the evidence of guilt of any other person than the accused. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 570 (S.C.)
Circumstantial evidence - The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be fully established - Each fact must be proved individually and only thereafter the Court should consider the total cumulative effect of all the proved facts, each one of which reinforces the conclusion of the guilt - If the combined effect of all the facts taken together is conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified even though it may be that one or more of these facts, by itself is not decisive - The circumstances proved should be such as to exclude every hypothesis except the one sought to be proved - But this does not mean that before the prosecution case succeeds in a case of circumstantial evidence alone, it must exclude each and every hypothesis suggested by the accused, howsoever extravagant and fanciful it might be - There must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability, the act must have been done by the accused. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 424 (S.C.)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.11 - Res judicata - Applicability of the principle of res judicata does not depend on the reasons on which the finding is based. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 558 (S.C.)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.11 - Res judicata - Decision if based on more than one point each of which by itself is sufficient for the ultimate decision - The decision on each of these points operates as res judicata between the parties. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 558 (S.C.)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.11 - Res judicata - Principles governing are : (a) no man should be vexed twice for the same cause; (b) it is in the interest of the State that there should be an end to a litigation; and (c) a judicial decision must be accepted as correct. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 558 (S.C.)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.11 - Res judicata - Question of title may arise even in a suit for injunction relating to possession. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 558 (S.C.)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.24 - Transfer of case - Sought from Chennai to Bangalore - Plea that it is inconvenient for her to look after the case at Chennai because she is working at Bangalore and has a small child - Husband unemployed - Wife directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to husband as travelling expenses. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 463 (S.C.)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.92 - State amendment whereby Court other than District Court also conferred jurisdiction u/s 92 CPC - Since the legislature has used the words 'or' whereby the suit could be instituted either in District Court or in any Court empowered by State Govt. which denotes an alternative, giving a choice - District Court and Court notified by State Govt. will have concurrent jurisdiction without reference to any pecuniary limits - Provision of a State Act specifying the pecuniary jurisdiction of Courts do not apply to a suit u/s 92 CPC. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 420 (S.C.)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.92 - Suit u/s 92 CPC - Jurisdiction - State amendment notification whereby jurisdiction was conferred on Courts other than District Court - As per provision of S.92 of CPC suit can be instituted in District Court or in any Court empowered by State Government - Word 'or' denotes an alternative, giving a choice - Held, District Courts and Subordinate Court empowered by State Govt. have concurrent jurisdiction. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 420 (S.C.)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.9.R.13 - Exparte decree - Setting aside - Non appearance despite receipt of notice for the reason that it was in Hindi which language they do not know - Summons however was issued both in Hindi as well as in English - Exparte decree can be set aside only on being satisfied that summons were not duly served or the person was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called for hearing - Incorrect stand taken - Sole aim to delay the disposal of suit - Order of dismissal upheld. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 407 (S.C.)
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21.R.89, Limitation Act, 1963, Art.127 - Auction sale - Setting aside - Limitation - Extension of period of limitation during which stay of execution was granted - Held, stay whether obtained by J.D. or by any other person is not relevant for consideration - The only question relevant for consideration is whether J.D. could have taken any steps in the proceeding which were stayed - Held, as the J.D. was prevented by the stay order from taking any further steps in the Execution proceedings as such he is entitled to the benefit of the said period and the same has to be excluded while considering the question of limitation as prescribed under Art.127 of the Limitation Act. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 533 (S.C.)
Civil & Criminal liability
Civil & Criminal liability - Merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 531 (S.C.)
Civil & Criminal proceedings
Civil & Criminal proceedings - Can go on simultaneously - A decision in a criminal case is not binding on a Civil Court. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 548 (S.C.)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Ss.2(1)(g), 2(1)(o) and S.21 - Deficiency of service - Bank - Loss of cheque book in which there was only one leaf unutilised - Withdrawal of amount from the account by using two leafs i.e. one leaf which was unutilised and also another leaf used from a new cheque book which was got issued by using requisition slip - Over drafting was also allowed which was not available to the account holder - Signatures on cheques differed from the specimen signatures - Forum directed bank to credit withdrawn amount in complainants account with 10% interest - Supreme Court upheld the order of Consumer Forum and imposed cost of Rs.10,000/-. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 588 (S.C.)
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Ss.21(1)(g), (o) - Deficiency in service - Allotment of plot - Delay was on account of order passed by High Court directing parties to maintain status quo on the question of possession of plots in question - No deficiency of service - There is no liability to pay interest. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 596 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154 - FIR - Delay - Requisition sent by hospital to police to record the statement of deceased whose condition was serious - Requisition was sent to police on 09.04.1995 and formal FIR recorded on 12.04.1995 - On the basis of information received by police the police stated investigation by sending a requisition to the Magistrate which was followed up by recording the statement of the deceased by police - Held, delay in recording formal FIR stands explained. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 499 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.154 - FIR - Name of appellant's not mentioned - Complainant could identify some of the assailants if they come before him - Complainant was not aware of the names of all the accused persons - Name of appellants' included by IO - Held, FIR is not encyclopedia of all the facts relating to crime - At the time of lodging FIR the informant should state all those facts which normally strike to mind and help in assessing the gravity of the crime or identity of the culprit briefly. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 589 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.204 - Issuance of process - Magistrate while issuing process against the accused should satisfy himself as to whether the allegations in the complaint, if proved, would ultimately end in the conviction of the accused. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 483 (S.C.) 3? 3 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.319 - Additional accused - Newly added accused has right to cross examine witnesses who were examined before framing of charge. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 412 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.378 - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate Court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded - However, an appellate Court must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused - Firstly, the presumption of innocence is available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law - Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court - If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 464 (S.C.)
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 - Quashing of FIR - Power when to be exercised - Enumerated. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 483 (S.C.)
Defective investigation
Defective investigation - Blood stained clothes not sent for chemical examination - Failure of investigating agency cannot be a ground to discredit the testimony of the victim - Victim had no control over the investigating agency and the negligence, if any, of the investigating officer could not affect the credibility of the statement of victim. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 464 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872
Evidence Act, 1872, S.9 - Test identification parade - Accused identified by the witnesses at the time of arrest itself - Holding identification parade would have been a futile exercise/inconsequential. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 589 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.9 - Test identification parade - Not a substantive evidence - TIP is meant for the purpose of helping the investigating agency with an assurance that their progress with the investigation into the offence is proceeding on right lines. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 570 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.9 - Test identification parade - Where the accused has been arrested in presence of the witness accused has been shown to the witness or even his photograph has been shown by the Investigating Officer prior to test identification parade, holding identification parade in such facts and circumstances remains inconsequential. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 589 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.24 - Extra judicial confession - There is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that the evidence furnishing extra-judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence - The evidence relating to extra-judicial confession can be acted upon if the evidence about extra-judicial confession comes from the mouth of a witness who appears to be unbiased and in respect of whom even remotely nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 424 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.26 - Extra judicial confession made while accused was brought to Court for extension of judicial remand - Accused could not probabilise his defence that he was in custody of police officer - Accused could not name the police officer who had brought him to the Court premises for extension of judicial remand - It is not the case of accused that to the hearing of police officer who brought him to the Court premises, he had made confessional statement - Held, it is not probablised by the defence that the accused was in custody of police officer while he had made extra judicial confession. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 424 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.27, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.100(4), 100(5) - Material discovered pursuant to the facts deposed by the accused in police custody - Reliability - Depends on facts of each case - If discovery is otherwise reliable, its evidentiary value is not diluted just by reason of non compliance with the provision of S.100(4) or S.100(5) of the Code. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 570 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.27 - If facts deposed u/s 27 are not voluntary, then it will not be admissible and will be hit by Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 570 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.32 - Dying declaration - Recorded by Magistrate - Certificate of fitness by doctor - Not required when dying declaration is recorded by Magistrate - It is the testimony of the Magistrate that declarant was fit to make statement which gains importance and reliance can be placed upon declaration even in the absence of the doctor's certificate provided the Court ultimately holds the same to be voluntary and truthful. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 499 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.35 - Age - Proof - Entries made in Deaths and Births register maintained by statutory authorities raises a presumption of correctness - Such entries are admissible in evidence - Such entries prevail over an entry made in the school register, particularly, in absence of any proof that same was recorded at the instance of the guardian. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 441 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.43 - Judgment in a criminal case - Admissibility in a civil suit - Judgment in a criminal case is admissible provided it is a relevant fact in issue - Its admissibility otherwise is limited. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 548 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.43 - Judgment in a criminal case - Not admissible in a civil suit. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 548 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.45 - Finger prints - Evidence of finger print expert is not substantive evidence - Such evidence can only be used to corroborate some items of substantive evidence which are otherwise on record. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 570 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.58 - Admission made in a criminal case - Confronted with the same in civil suit - Admitted the same - Such admission is admissible in evidence - Admission so made can be explained away - Explanation offered whether acceptable or not falls within the realm of appreciation of evidence. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 548 (S.C.)
Evidence Act, 1872, S.106, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 - Presumption u/s 106 Evidence Act - In a trial for murder it is extremely weak in comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 570 (S.C.)
Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984
Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, Ss.131, 27, Primary Co-operative Credit and Service Society Staff Service Rules, 1992, Rule 9 - Excess payment made by Society to its employees - Recovery of excess payment - Rules specifically provided that employees should be paid a consolidated salary - Without amendment to the Rules, the Managing Committee cannot pass a resolution for giving the benefit of regular pay scales and that too with retrospective effect - Order to recover excess payment ordered but keeping in view the hardship to be faced employees to pay the excess payment in twenty four monthly instalments. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 556 (S.C.)
Haryana Co-operative Societies Act, 1984, Ss.131, 27, Primary Co-operative Credit and Service Society Staff Service Rules,1992, Rule 9 - Excess payment made by Society to its employees - Recovery of excess payment - There is no principle that any excess payment to employees should not be recovered back by the employer - However, Court in certain cases has exercised its power to refuse recovery of excess wrong payments of emoluments/allowance on the ground of hardship when the excess payment was not made on account of any misrepresentation or fraud on the part of the employee and such excess payment was made by the employer by applying a wrong principle for calculating the pay/allowance or on the basis of a particular interpretation of rule/order, which is subsequently found to be erroneous. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 556 (S.C.)
Hindu Law
Hindu Law - Joint Family Property - Agricultural land of coparceners/co-sharers - Sale of - Sale of undivided share of a coparcener/co-sharers is unlaw/illegal when various statutes put an embargo on fragmentation of holdings below the prescribed extent. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 585 (S.C.)
Hindu Law - Joint Family Property - Undivided share of a co-parcener can be a subject matter of sale/transfer, but possession cannot be handed over to the vendee unless the property is partitioned by metes and bounds, either by the decree of a Court in a partition suit, or by settlement among the co-sharers. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 585 (S.C.)
Indian penal Code, 1860
Indian penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II - Custodial death - SHO beating a person in custody - Death - Act which was done with the knowledge of accused was likely by such act to cause death of deceased - Case falls within 3rd part of S.299 IPC and is punishable u/s 304 Part II IPC. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 608 (S.C.)
Indian penal Code, 1860, S.304 Part II - Custodial death - SHO beating a suspect who was in policy custody - Accused convicted u/s 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to 8 years RI and fined Rs.2 lakhs - Incident 22 years old - Accused aged 67 years - Sentence reduced from 8 years to 5 years and amount of fine increased from 2 to 5 lakhs. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 608 (S.C.)
Indian penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape - Absence of injury on private parts - Victim 40 years of age and used to sexual intercourse - Absence of injury on private parts of the victim is not very significant. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 464 (S.C.)
Indian penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape - Forcible sexual intercourse - Absence of injuries on the person of victim - Victim 40 years of age and accused 20 years of age - Victim could not put a strong defence - Much importance cannot be given to the absence of defence injuries, because it is not inevitable rule that in the absence of defence injuries the prosecution must necessarily fail to establish its case. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 464 (S.C.)
Indian penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape - In a case of rape statement of prosecutrix must be given primary consideration - Principle that prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt also applies to a rape case - There is no presumption that a prosecutrix would always tell the entire story truthfully. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 418 (S.C.)
Indian penal Code, 1860, S.376 - Rape - Victim not naming the culprits while narrating the incident to PW4 Pradhan of village - Not correct - Husband of victim in presence of prosecutrix had already told that she was raped by the appellants - It was not reasonable to expect from the victim who was under shock due to the incident, to narrate the same to PW4 Pradhan in presence of her husband and son. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 464 (S.C.)
Indian penal Code, 1860, S.405 - Criminal breach of trust - Ingredients of the offence are : (i) entrusting any person with property or with dominion over the property, (ii) the person entrusted (a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use the property or (b) dishonestly used or disposed of the property or willfully suffered any other person so to do in violation (i) of any direction of law prescribing mode in which such mode is to be discharged or (ii) of any legal contract made touching the discharge of trust. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 531 (S.C.)
Indian penal Code, 1860, S.415 - Cheating - Can be committed in the commercial as well as money transactions. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 531 (S.C.)
Indian penal Code, 1860, Ss.405, 406 - Criminal breach of trust - Prosecution is required to prove that the accused was entrusted with property or he had dominion over the property and that the accused misappropriated or converted the property to his own use or used or disposed of the property or willfully suffered any person to dispose of the property dishonestly or in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which the entrusted property should be dealt with or any legal contract express or implied which he had entered into relating to carrying out of the trust. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 531 (S.C.)
Indian penal Code, 1860, Ss.420, 409, Indian Stamp Act, 1899, Ss.64 & 69 - Purchase of insurance stamps from outside the State and thus causing loss to the State exchequer - Insurance stamps are the property of the Central Govt. - When stamps are the property of the Central Govt. then it is immaterial whether these are purchased from within the State or outside the State - It is legally untenable to contend that the insurance stamps must be purchased from within the State - Proceedings quashed. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 483 (S.C.)
Injured witness
Injured witness - Deposition of injured witness should be relied upon unless there are strong grounds for rejection of his evidence on the basis of major contradictions and discrepancies, for the reason that his presence on the scene stands established in the case, it is proved that he suffered the injury during the said incident. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 589 (S.C.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Ss.4 & 6, Tamil Nadu Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1997, S.48-B - Re-transfer of acquired land to original owners - Can be done only till the land continues to vest in the Govt. and that too if Govt. is satisfied that land is not required for notified purpose or for any other public purpose - If acquired land is transferred to any other agency then Govt. cannot exercise the power of re-conveyance - Government cannot be compelled to reconvey the land to original owners if same can be utilized for any other public purpose. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 598 (S.C.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Ss.4 & 6 - Land acquisition - Notification challenged by some of the landowners - Quashing of proceedings at the instance of some of the landlords - Does not nullify the entire acquisition - Acquisition will continue to remain valid for others who did not challenge the acquisition notification. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 598 (S.C.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.48 - Land Acquisition - Possession of notified land taken over - State is denuded of its power to withdraw from the acquisition in terms of Section 48 of the Act. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 535 (S.C.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Ss.48, 17 - Land acquisition - Possession of notified land taken over - Notification u/s 48 of the Act cannot be issued on the ground that major part of land is not physically taken over - When provision of S.17 was taken recourse to, vesting land in State had taken effect immediately - Plea that merely symbolic possession was taken is difficult to accept. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 535 (S.C.)
Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Ss.48, 17, 6 & 4 - Land acquisition - For thermal power station - Land could not be used for notified purpose as power station had to be shifted to another site due to ecological reasons - It is permissible to use the acquired land which had vested in it for another purpose which comes within the purview of public purpose. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 535 (S.C.)
Limitation Act, 1963
Limitation Act, 1963, S.3, Art.127, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.21.R.89 - Setting aside of auction sale - Limitation - Extension of period during which stay of execution was granted - Relevant question for consideration is whether J.D. was prevented from taking any further steps in the execution proceedings and not whether it was J.D. or some other person who has obtained the stay order. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 533 (S.C.)
Medical negligence
Medical negligence - A mere deviation from normal professional practice is not necessarily evidence of negligence. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 445 (S.C.)
Medical negligence - Doctors in complicated case have to take chance even if the rate of survival is low. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 445 (S.C.)
Medical negligence - Medical science has conferred great benefits on mankind, but these benefits are attended by considerable risks - Every surgical operation is attended by risks - We cannot take the benefits without taking risks - Every advancement in technique is also attended by risks. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 445 (S.C.)
Medical negligence - Some basic principles which emerge in dealing with cases of medical negligence are : (1) Negligence is the breach of a duty exercised by omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do; (2) Negligence is an essential ingredient of the offence. The negligence to be established by the prosecution must be culpable or gross and not the negligence merely based upon an error of judgment; (3) The medical professional is expected to bring a reasonable degree of skill and knowledge and must exercise a reasonable degree of care. Neither the very highest nor a very low degree of care and competence judged in the light of the particular circumstances of each case is what the law requires; (4) A medical practitioner would be liable only where his conduct fell below that of the standards of a reasonably competent practitioner in his field; (5) In the realm of diagnosis and treatment there is scope for genuine difference of opinion and one professional doctor is clearly not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional doctor; (6) The medical professional is often called upon to adopt a procedure which involves higher element of risk, but which he honestly believes as providing greater chances of success for the patient rather than a procedure involving lesser risk but higher chances of failure. Just because a professional looking to the gravity of illness has taken higher element of risk to redeem the patient out of his/her suffering which did not yield the desired result may not amount to negligence; (7) Negligence cannot be attributed to a doctor so long as he performs his duties with reasonable skill and competence. Merely because the doctor chooses one course of action in preference to the other one available, he would not be liable if the course of action chosen by him was acceptable to the medical profession; (8) It would not be conducive to the efficiency of the medical profession if no Doctor could administer medicine without a halter round his neck; (9) It is our bounden duty and obligation of the civil society to ensure that the medical professionals are not unnecessary harassed or humiliated so that they can perform their professional duties without fear and apprehension; (10) The medical practitioners at times also have to be saved from such a class of complainants who use criminal process as a tool for pressurizing the medical professionals/hospitals particularly private hospitals or clinics for extracting uncalled for compensation. Such malicious proceedings deserve to be discarded against the medical practitioners; (11) The medical professionals are entitled to get protection so long as they perform their duties with reasonable skill and competence and in the interest of the patients. The interest and welfare of the patients have to be paramount for the medical professionals. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 445 (S.C.)
Medical negligence - When doctors perform their duties and exercise an ordinary degree of professional skill and competence, they cannot be held guilty of medical negligence. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 445 (S.C.)
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Second Schedule - Deceased 48 years of age at the time of accident - Multiplier of 13 is applicable for computing the amount of compensation. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 555 (S.C.) 3u 3 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, S.138 - Dishonour of cheque - Notice issued and duly served - No action taken on non payment - Notice issued for the second time - Complaint filed on the basis of second notice - Cause of action to file complaint on non-payment despite issue of notice, arises once - Another cause of action would not arise on repeated dishonour on re-presentation - Complaint is not within time - Order taking cognizance set aside. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 480 (S.C.)
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Ss.3, 4, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.361, Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.307 - Benefit of probation to a convict u/s 307 IPC - Grant of relief u/s 361 Cr.P.C. or under Probation of Offenders Act should be granted where the offence is not very grave in nature and in certain cases where mens rea remain absent as in a case of rash and negligent driving u/ss 279 read with S.304 IPC - Such benefit should not be given where High Court itself reduces the sentence substantially. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 580 (S.C.)
Service
Service - Ahlmad of Court though not on duty at the relevant time but was found drinking alcohol with Chowkidar at the Court premises - One of the persons who was on duty at that time alongwith him though found guilty in the inquiry but was ordered to be reinstated by Supreme Court - Action of appellate deprecated - Having regard to the fact that he is to maintain his family appellant reinstated in service but not entitled to back wages - His previous service may be reckoned only for purpose of pension. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 417 (S.C.)
Service - Department enquiry - Not to be treated as a casual exercise - Enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind - Enquiry Officer has to be wholly unbiased. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 469 (S.C.)
Service - Departmental enquiry - Employee is entitled to all the relevant statement, documents and other materials to enable him to have reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the department enquiry against the charges. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 469 (S.C.)
Service - Departmental enquiry - Has to be conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice - It is a basic requirement of rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceeding which may culminate in a punishment being imposed on the employee. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 469 (S.C.)
Service - Departmental enquiry - Non disclosure of documents having a potential to cause prejudice to a government servant in the enquiry proceedings would clearly be denial of a reasonable opportunity to submit a plausible and effective rebuttal to the charges being enquired into against the government servant. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 469 (S.C.)
Service - Employee under suspension - Benefit of revised pay and subsistence allowance coming into force during period of suspension - As per rules benefit of pay revision and consequent revision of subsistence allowance stand postponed till the conclusion of departmental proceedings - In the instant case revision of pay scale came into force when employee was under suspension and later he was dismissed from service - Held, benefit of pay revision or revision of subsistence allowance does not accrue to him. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 492 (S.C.)
Statutes
Statutes - Interpretation - Provision of a statute should be read as it is without adding, substituting or omitting any words - Words in the statute should be assigned and ascribed their natural, ordinary or popular meaning - Only when such plain and straight reading, or ascribing the natural and normal meaning to the words leads to ambiguity, vagueness, uncertainty, or absurdity then Court should open its interpretation tool kit containing the settled rules of construction and interpretation to arrive at the true meaning of the provision. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 420 (S.C.)
|
