Electricity Act, 2003 provides for three tiers of framing of regulations: (a) Central/State government u/s.176 & 180 respectively, (b) Central Regulatory Authority u/s.177, (c) Central/State Electricity Regulatory Commission u/s.178 & 181 of the enactment. Further, only Parliament has been empowered to modify the rules/regulations, and not the State governments. PTC India Limited v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (Supreme Court) (5J).

When regulations are framed by the Central Electricity Regulatory Commission under s.178 of Electricity Act, 2003, then no appeal would lie as framing of regulation is an act of subordinate legislation. Such regulations could be challenged only by way of filing of writ petition u/A.226 of Constitution of India. PTC India Limited v. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission, (Supreme Court) (5J).

State government has competence to file appeal against orders of acquittal under s.378 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, however, subject to the condition that when the cases are prosecuted by Central Bureau of Investigation or any other special statutory agency, then the appeal cannot be filed by the State government but by the appropriate government controlling the said agency. Lalu Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, (Supreme Court) (3J).

Place of sitting of Sessions Court under s.9 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 shall generally be determined on the basis of notifications issued by the High Court, and the power of Sessions Court itself to determine the place of sitting is subject to the said condition. Further, notification issued by the High Court on its administrative side for constituting Sessions Court within the jail premises of hearing all matters against the Appellant would be subject to judicial review. However, principles of audi alteram partem are not necessary in-built while exercising such administrative powers. Mohammad Shahabuddin v. State of Bihar, (Supreme Court).

In order a message or communication qualifies to be FIR, there must be something in the nature of a complaint or accusation or at least some information of the crime given with the object of setting the police or criminal law into action. Patai v. State of UP, (Supreme Court).

Holding of post is one of the primary conditions to be fulfilled while transferring an employee, and in case of employee holding a transferable post, transfer is an incident of his service. As a daily-wage employee is not appointed against any post, therefore, he cannot be transferred from one place to another. Ashok Tiwari v. M.P. Text Book Corporation, (High Court of Madhya Pradesh) (FB).

Hon'ble High Court is required to examine whether the application for certificate for appeal to Hon'ble Supreme Court satisfies the twin test contained in s.109 & Order XLV of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Further, the test which have been provided under the Constitution of India are also required to be satisfied before the certificate is issued by the High Court that the matter is fit for appeal to Supreme Court. Ponnamma John v. Vijaykumar Tanwar (HC of MP).

When the cheque was issued in the name of a person, who had expired, then the complaint cannot be presented by any other person unless it demonstrated through will/certificate/otherwise that he was entitled to receive the money under the cheque. Kishore Goyal v. Hanif Patel, (HC of MP).

When the decree of divorce by mutual consent has been obtained from Lok Adalat by fraud, coercion, etc., even under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, then the same could be challenged before the High Court under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India. Manju Sharma v. Raj Bahadur Sharma, (HC of MP).

FAQ's

Links