This tag is associated with 42 posts

Bail: Allegations against respondent no.1 that he had huge amount of unaccounted money, that documents recovered from his premises contained instructions issued by him for transfer of various amounts to different persons from the bank accounts held by him outside India and the said monies were the proceeds of crime and by depositing the same in his bank accounts, respondent no.1 had attempted to project the same as untainted money – Further allegation that the said amount ran into billions of dollars; that respondent no.1 had obtained at least three passports in his name by submitting false documents, making false statements and by suppressing the fact that he already had a passport; that Income Tax Department had for the Assessment Years 2001-02 to 2007-08 assessed his total income as Rs.110,412,68,85303/- – Investigations also revealed that he sold a diamond from the collection of Nizam of Hyderabad and routed the proceeds through his account in Bank in Switzerland to a Bank in United Kingdom – High Court allowed bail application of respondent no.1 – On appeal, held: There was no attempt on part of respondent no.1 to disclose the source of the large sums of money handled by him – The allegations may not ultimately be established, but the burden of proof that the said monies were not the proceeds of crime and were not tainted shifted to respondent no.1 u/s.24 of PML Act – The amount lying in the Swiss bank was not explained by respondent no.1 – He was also not able to establish that the sum of Rs.110,412,68,85303/- were neither proceeds of crime nor tainted property – Manner in which he procured three different passports in his name after his original passport was directed to be deposited in court also lend support to apprehension that if released on bail, he may abscond – Bail granted to Respondent no.1 cancelled – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 – s.4 – FEMA – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.439. Bail – Application for cancellation of bail, and appeal against order granting bail – Distinction between. State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi (2005) 8 SCC 21: 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454 – relied on. Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (II) (1994) 5 SCC 410: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263; Uday Mohanlal Acharya v. State of Maharashtra (2001) 5 SCC 453: 2001 (2) SCR 878 – referred to. Case Law Reference: 1994 (3) Suppl. SCR 263 referred to Para 17 2001 (2) SCR 878 referred to Para 17 2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 454 relied on Para 27 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1883 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 12.8.2011 of the High Court of Bombay i Criminal Bail Appliction No. 994 of 2011. A. Mariarputham, Rajiv Nanda, Revati Mohite, T.A. Khan, Anirudh Sharma, Anando Mukherjee, Harsh Parekh and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant. Ishwari Prasad A. Bagaria, Vijay Bhaskar Reddy, Santosh Paul, Uma Ishwari Bagaria, Arti Singh, Arvind Gupta, Mohita Bagati, Kamal Nijhawan and Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondents.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1883 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.6114 OF 2011) Union of India … Appellant Vs. Hassan Ali Khan & Anr. … Respondents O R D E R ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The Special Leave Petition out of which this … Continue reading

Unlike natural calamities that are beyond human control, avoidable disasters resulting from human error/negligence prove more tragic and completely imbalance the inter-generational equity and cause irretrievable damage to the health and environment for generations to come. Such tragedy may occur from pure negligence, contributory negligence or even failure to take necessary precautions in carrying on certain industrial activities. More often than not, the affected parties have to face avoidable damage and adversity that results from such disasters. The magnitude and extent of adverse impact on the financial soundness, social health and upbringing of younger generation, including progenies, may have been beyond human expectations. In such situations and where the laws are silent or are inadequate, the courts have unexceptionally stepped in to bridge the gaps, to provide for appropriate directions and guidelines to ensure that fundamentals of Article 21 of the Constitution of India (for short “the Constitution”) are not violated.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (C) NO.50 OF 1998   Bhopal Gas Peedith Mahila Udyog Sangathan & Ors. … Petitioners Versus Union of India & Ors. … Respondents WITH IA NOS. 62-63 OF 2011 IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3187 – 3188 OF 1988   O R D E R … Continue reading

“14. Ex.C-4 is the receipt issued by the appellant vide which ‘Safed Musli sowing material was booked in advance for Rs. 78,000/-. Ex.C-10 is the guidelines issued by the appellant through its Technical Department and the name of the supervisor was Iqbal Singh, Ex. C-12 is the advertisement vide which respondent no. 1 and others were allured to cultivate ‘Safed Musli’ and the same was got published by the appellant, being franchisee of respondent no. 2, as mentioned in this advertisement and Ex.C-13 is the copy of the News Letter issued by the appellant, further guiding the farmers for preparation of the fields. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Ex. C-7 is not signed by any party and mere attestation is not sufficient to bind respondent no. 2 vide this MOU, but it is clear that the appellant allured respondent no. 1 and others to cultivate the ‘Safed Musli crop and predicted huge profits. Respondent no. 1 admittedly purchased ‘Safed Musli’ seed from the appellant and under the guidance of Iqbal Singh, who was the supervisor of the appellant, the said seed was sown but later on, Iqbal Singh gave his affidavit Ex.C-3, blaming that the plants withered away as the seed was not of good quality. The appellant has sold the seeds to respondent no.1 and it was for the appellant to ensure about the quality of the Seed. The appellant was required to obtain the copy of the certification of the seeds as well as the analyst report, before alluring the farmers to go for ‘Safed Musli’ crop as mode of diversification of the crop, but nothing has been placed on record and the absence of these vital documents and the affidavit of Iqbal Singh, supervisor of the appellant definitely prove that the quality of the seed was poor and for that the respondent no.1 suffered loss. This District Forum in its well reasoned and detailed order has rejected the other claims of respondent no. 1 which he could not prove, but has allowed the claim which is justified and there is no ground to interfere with the same ” . We find no merit in the revision petition, and therefore, the same is dismissed.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES RERESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO. 2675 OF 2012  (From the order dated 30.04.2012 in Appeal No. 562/2007 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh) Diverse Agro                                                             …  Petitioner 48-B, Tagore Nagar, Ludhiana through its Partner Sukhbir Singh of Ludhiana Versus 1.   Gurmeet Singh                                               …  Respondents       S/o Sh. Mukhtiar Singh R/o Dhan Singh … Continue reading

Section 151 CPC and analogus to the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleadment of a party to the complaint. The complainants are the parents of Shri‘Nitin Arora’ a student of Ninth class, who used to study in ‘Mahashya Chuni Lal Saraswati Bal Mandir, Senior Secondary School, L-Block, Hari Nagar, New Delhi’. He went with the school teachers and drowned in the Saryu river while taking a bath. There is sufficient delay in filing this application but taking into consideration the fact that the complainants are the unfortunate parents of a child, who died at a very young age, we do not propose to impose any costs. Amended complaint be filed and school be summoned for 24.9.2012. School is directed to file its written statement on the date fixed.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES RERESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI M.A. No. 296 OF 2012 (for impleadment of parties) IN ORIGINAL PETITION NO. 269 OF 1999 Madan Lal Arora                                                          …  Complainant Versus Dharampal Ji,M.D.H. & Ors.                             …  Opposite Parties   BEFORE:      HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER       HON’BLE MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER For the Complainant               :  Mr. Peeyoosh Kalra, Advocate with Mr. Ashok, Advocate For the Opp. Parties               :  Mr. D. K. Mehta, Advocate   Pronounced … Continue reading

Settled canons of criminal jurisprudence when applied in their correct perspective, give rise to the following questions for consideration of the Court in the present appeal: a) Where acts of omission and commission, deliberate or otherwise, are committed by the investigating agency or other significant witnesses instrumental in proving the offence, what approach, in appreciation of evidence, should be adopted? b) Depending upon the answer to the above, what directions should be issued by the courts of competent jurisdiction? c) Whenever there is some conflict in the eye-witness version of events and the medical evidence, what effect will it have on the case of the prosecution and what would be the manner in which the Court should appreciate such evidence? We hold, declare and direct that it shall be appropriate exercise of jurisdiction as well as ensuring just and fair investigation and trial that courts return a specific finding in such cases, upon recording of reasons as to deliberate dereliction of duty, designedly defective investigation, intentional acts of omission and commission prejudicial to the case of the prosecution, in breach of professional standards and investigative requirements of law, during the course of the investigation by the investigating agency, expert witnesses and even the witnesses cited by the prosecution. Further, the Courts would be fully justified in directing the disciplinary authorities to take appropriate disciplinary or other action in accordance with law, whether such officer, expert or employee witness, is in service or has since retired. 40. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.Today, by a separate judgment, we have directed that action be taken against PW 3 Dr. C.N. Tewari and PW 6 SI Kartar Singh. The Director General of Police and Director General, Health of State of Uttar Pradesh and/or Uttarakhand whoever is the appropriate authority, to take action within three months from today and report the matter to this Court. List for limited purpose on 15th October, 2012.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.529 OF 2010 Dayal Singh & Ors. … Appellants Versus State of Uttaranchal … Respondent J U D G M E N T Swatanter Kumar, J. 1. Settled canons of criminal jurisprudence when applied in their correct perspective, give rise to the following … Continue reading

the Entrance Examination for Post-Graduate (Medical) Selection 2012, Odisha are challenging the validity of Clause 11.2 of the Prospectus for selection of candidates for Post- Graduate (Medical) Courses in the Government Medical Colleges of Odisha for the Academic Year, 2012, as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. -they are undergoing studies from May 2012 onwards and, at this distance of time, if they are displaced, that will cause serious injustice to them since they have already left the government service/public sector undertakings for joining the post graduate course. In view of the stand taken by the Medical Council -of India that seats for post-graduate courses cannot be increased, we are inclined to give a direction to the State of Odisha or their undertakings to take back the in-service candidates into their service and permit them to serve in the rural/tribal areas so that they can compete through the category of in-service candidates in the 50% seats earmarked for them for admission to the post-graduate course.We are, therefore, inclined to allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the Division Bench as well as learned Single Judge by quashing the proviso to clause 9(2)(d) of the MCI regulations to the extend indicated above as well as clause 11.2 of the prospectus issued for admission to the Post Graduate Medical Examination 2012 in the State of Odisha. The State of Odisha, the Medical Council of India and respondents 1 to 4 are directed to take urgent steps to re-arrange the merit list and to fill up the seats of the direct category, excluding in-service candidates who got admission in the open category on the strength of weightage, within a period of one week from today and give admission to the open category candidates strictly on the basis of merit. – 36. Appeals are allowed and the judgments of the High Court are set aside accordingly.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5705-5706 OF 2012 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 16201-16202 of 2012] Satyaprata Sahoo & Ors. . Appellants Versus State of Orissa & Ors. . Respondents J U D G M E N T K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. … Continue reading

when does the payment of compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923 (hereinafter the Act) become due and consequently what is the point in time from which interest would be payable on the amount of compensation as provided under section 4-A (3) of the Act.A four Judge Bench of this Court in Pratap Narain Singh Deo v. Srinivas Sabata, (1976) 1 SCC 289: (AIR 1976 SC 222: 1976 Lab IC 222) speaking through Singhal, J. has held that an employer becomes liable to pay compensation as soon as the personal injury is caused to the workmen by the accident which arose out of and in the course of employment. Thus, the relevant date for determination of the rate of compensation is the date of the accident and not the date of adjudication of the claim.The decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo was by a four Judge Bench and in Valsala by a three Judge Bench of this Court. Both the decisions were, thus, fully binding on the Court in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir, each of which was heard by two Judges. But the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala were not brought to the notice of the Court in the two later decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir.In light of the decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala, it is not open to contend that the payment of compensation would fall due only after the Commissioner’s order or with reference to the date on which the claim application is made. The decisions in Mubasir Ahmed and Mohd. Nasir insofar as they took a contrary view to the earlier decisions in Pratap Narain Singh Deo and Valsala do not express the correct view and do not make binding precedents.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5669 OF 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.9516 of 2010)     |The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. |…..APPELLANT(S) | | | | |VERSUS | | |Siby George & Ors. |…..RESPONDENT(S) |       JUDGMENT   Aftab Alam, J. 1. Leave granted. … Continue reading

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION – “injury” – definition – exclusionary provision – administrative action in respect of employee’s employment – bank manager suffered major depressive disorder – multiple causes – organisational and staffing changes with respect to manager’s branch, humiliation in having to report unsatisfactory results in telephone conference, visit to branch by regional manager who did not spend time with manager, distribution of unsatisfactory results of customer satisfaction survey, impending further telephone conference – whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal erred in construction of exclusionary provision – whether any of causes capable of falling within exclusionary provision

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve [2012] FCAFC 21 (8 March 2012) Last Updated: 8 March 2012 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA   Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve [2012] FCAFC 21   Citation: Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Reeve [2012] FCAFC 21 Appeal from: Reeve and Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2010] AATA 893 Parties: COMMONWEALTH BANK … Continue reading

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY – plant variety rights – plant breeder’s rights – repeal of Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 (Cth) by Plant Breeder’s Rights Act 1994 (Cth) – where application for plant variety rights was filed and accepted under Plant Variety Rights Act 1987 – where application not granted until after repeal of Plant Variety Rights Act – whether grant of plant variety rights or plant breeder’s rights – whether grant of rights made under repealed Act – whether duration of rights granted calculated from date of acceptance or date of grant Held: no grant of plant variety rights under Plant Variety Rights Act – plant breeder’s right granted under Plant Breeder’s Rights Act – duration of right calculated from date of grant rather than date of acceptance – appeal allowed

Elders Rural Services Australia Limited v Registrar of Plant Breeder’s Rights [2012] FCAFC 14 (29 February 2012) Last Updated: 1 March 2012 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA   Elders Rural Services Australia Limited v Registrar of Plant Breeder’s Rights [2012] FCAFC 14   Citation: Elders Rural Services Australia Limited v Registrar of Plant Breeder’s Rights [2012] … Continue reading

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – common law rules of procedural fairness – no disclosure of letter – relevant and significant – no continuing obligation of confidentiality MIGRATION – Judicial review of Migration Review Tribunal decision — refusal of partner residence visa —domestic violence claim — procedural fairness —receipt by Department of prejudicial letter from sponsor — two opinions of independent expert that applicant was not a victim of domestic violence committed by sponsor — Tribunal considered itself bound by opinion — whether opinion formed in denial of procedural fairness — whether procedural fairness required letter or its substance to be disclosed to applicant — whether information in letter was “credible, relevant and significant” PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – notice of contention – need to “specify briefly” the grounds relied on

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Maman [2012] FCAFC 13 (28 February 2012) Last Updated: 28 February 2012 FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA   Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Maman [2012] FCAFC 13   Citation: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Maman [2012] FCAFC 13 Appeal from: Maman v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,883,996 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com