January - 2012

  • Answer-scripts of the students contain the opinion of the examiner, which is an information under Right to Information Act, 2005. Further held, that as the examination board being public authority does not fall into the exempted categories of intelligence or security establishment, therefore, the students have the right to access to the answer scripts under the said enactment. Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (Supreme Court).

  • Consumer Forum: As the provision for setting aside ex-parte orders empowers only the National Commission to set aside such orders which had been passed by itself, therefore, the State Commission and District Forum would not be empowered to set-aside such ex-parte orders which were passed by them. Rajeev Hitendra Pathak v. Achyut Kashinath, (Supreme Court)(3J).
  • Consumer Forum: Parallel jurisdiction: Forums which have been created under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are empowered to compensate for deficiency in services rendered, and to that extent provide for forums in addition to the regular forums as provided under the specific statutes, eg., Carriage by Air Act, 1972. Further, consumer forums under this enactment would be considered as Courts under the international law. Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports, (Supreme Court).
  • Principles of sentencing (punishment) in corruption cases:
         a) Long delay in disposal of proceedings would not be sufficient ground for reduction of sentence, specifically when law prescribes minimum sentence. When the law does not prescribe the minimum sentence, Courts may consider effect of delay on sentence;
        b) In case of corruption by public servant, quantum of amount is immaterial. It would depend upon the conduct of the delinquent and the proof regarding demand and acceptance established by prosecution;
        c) Merely because the wrong-doer has lost his job due to conviction under law, it would not be a mitigating circumstance when the law prescribes the minimum sentence.
    AB Bhaskar Rao v. Inspector of Police, CBI, Vishakapatnam, (Supreme Court).
  • Default Bail: When the accused is brought for investigation and illegally detained which was not challenged before any Court of law, then such date of illegal detention would not be considered as date of arrest for purposes of default bail under Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Further held, when charge-sheet has already been filed, even after alleged lapse of 90 days, then default bail cannot be granted and application for enlargement on bail is required to be considered on merits. Pragyna Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (Supreme Court).
  • Education: When a candidate was granted admission in spite of all information being provided by her, then, after her prosecuting studies for 1 years she cannot be debarred from exams on the premise that she does not fulfil the admission requirements. Ku. Anuradha Yadav v. Barkatullah University, (HC of MP).
  • Judicial officers: When power is exercised by High Court under Article 235 for screening of the judicial officers of the sub-ordinate judiciary, then there cannot be any bar with respect to the fact that screening can take place only at the age of 50 or 55 years, and not in the intervening period. This exception for the judicial officers is required to ensure that persons of doubtful integrity are not continued even for a single day. Rajendra Singh Verma v. Lieutenant Governor (NCT of Delhi), (Supreme Court).
  • Motor Accidents: When the insurance company is made a party by the claimant before the claims tribunal or by the tribunal itself, then the insurance company would be at liberty to contest the entire claim on each of the issues. However, when the insurance company is merely receives a notice about the proceedings being initiated by the claimant against the owner of the insured vehicle, then the insurance company would be able to contest the case with respect to breach of policy, and not otherwise. United India Insurance Company v. Shila Datta (Supreme Court)(FB).
  • Public Interest Litigation: Whenever there is distribution of public funds, and in such distribution there is nepotism, favouritism and unwarranted misuse of government largesse by private interests which frustrates public schemes, then High Court shall entertain PIL and strike at such action. Further held, in the facts of the case that sports infrastructure should not be permitted for misuse to ensure human resource development is protected. Krishan Lal Gera v. State of Haryana, (Supreme Court).
  • Ransom money: When amount of ransom was paid to avoid threat of death of the kidnapped Director of the business, then it is not excluded from the deductions towards the expenditure incidental to business as provided under section 37(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Khemchand Motilal Jain, (HC of MP) (DB).

Archive >>