Posts

Showing posts from 2019

Sufficient Cause meaning under Limitation Act

Image
Meaning of the expression  “sufficient cause ”:  The Hon’ble Supreme Court   In Balwant Singh (Dead) vs Jagdish Singh & Ors [2010(8) SCC685], explaining the meaning of sufficient cause,  has held that “The expression `sufficient cause' implies the presence of legal and adequate reasons. The word `sufficient' means adequate enough, as much as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. It embraces no more than that which provides a plentitude which, when done, suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the light of existing circumstances and when viewed from the reasonable standard of practical and cautious men. The sufficient cause should be such as it would persuade the Court, in exercise of its judicial discretion, to treat the delay as an excusable one. These provisions give the Courts enough power and discretion to apply a law in a meaningful manner, while assuring that the purpose of enacting such a law does not stand frustrated. We fin...

Under Section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. Order Revision Maintainable

Image
Revision against the order of Magistrate u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. directing the Police to register the case and investigate is maintianble-Sabir Vs Jaswant, 2002 CrLJ4563(All).

The Limitation begins to run from the date of knowledge of an order-Delhi High Court

Image
Ø Rajesh Garg Vs Tata Tea Ltd & Anr. 2011 (3) JCC 1892 it has been held that: “The Limitation begins to run from the date of knowledge of an order”

Dishonour of cheque: Condonation of Delay not allowed

Image
Condoning the delay of one day in issuing notice as contemplatede Under section 138(b) of the Act. B.K. Sarkar And Anr. vs State Of Gujarat And Anr. on 12 September, 2007 Equivalent citations: 2008 CriLJ 1230

How to prepare for Judicial Services Examination: Fundamental Principles

Image

NDPS :Reverse burden of proof does not absolve the Prosecution from establishing a prima facie case against the Accused.:SC

The bench comprising  Justice Navin Sinha and Justice Indira Banerjee  was considering an appeal challenging conviction of an accused u/s 8 and 18(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act sentence the Accused to 10 years rigorous imprisonment, along with fine of Rs. 1 lakh, with a default stipulation While considering the Appeal Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, though Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act carries reverse burden of proof, it does not absolve the prosecution from establishing a prima facie case against the accused. While considering the contentions raised on behalf of the accused, the court in   Hanif Khan @ Annu Khan vs. Central Bureau Of Narcotics   observed that: The prosecution under the NDPS Act carries a reverse burden of proof with a culpable mental state of the accused. He is presumed to be guilty consequent to recovery of contraband from him, and it is for the accused to establish his innocen...

Consent in Rape Case

In Pramod Suryabhan Pawar V/s State of Maharashtra : The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance, or been a direct Nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act.

Mere Existence of Alternate Forums not a Legal Bar to Exercise Writ Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

In Maharashtra Chess Association vs. Union of India :The Supreme Court has observed mere existence of alternate forums where the aggrieved party may secure relief does not create a legal bar on a High Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction...

Duty of care does not end with Surgery : NCDRC orders Hospital and doctors to Pay 31 Lakhs

D uty of care does not end with surgery; NCDRC Orders the Hospital and doctors to pay 31 Lakh To deceased patient's family ; in Pankaj R Toprani & 3 Ors V/s Bombay Hospital and Research & Medical & 2 Ors

Consumer complaint, Duties of a Medical Practitioner were defined by Supreme Court in Dr.Laxman Balakrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Babu Godbole AIR 1969 SC 128

Dr.Laxman Balakrishna Joshi v. Dr. Trimbak Babu Godbole AIR 1969 SC 128 : A.he owes a duty of care in deciding whether to undertake the case, B. he owes a duty of care in deciding what treatment to give and, C. he owes a duty of care in the administration of that treatment. A breach of any of these duties gives a right of action for negligence to the patient.

Limitation for suit for Possession based on Title is not Lost merely because Relief of Declaration is also Sought

Supreme Court has held that in a suit filed for possession and declaration that he is the owner of the suit land based on title cannot succeed unless he is held to have some title over the land. The main relief is of possession and, therefore, the suit will be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which deals with a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title and the limitation is 12 years from the date when possession of the land becomes adverse to the plaintiff in  Sopanrao & Anr vs. Syed Mehmood &  Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 4478/2007), decided on 03.07.2019

Dishonour of cheque-Limitation

Use of word "from" in s. 138(a) of NI Act requires exclusion of first day on which cheque was drawn and inclusion of last day within which such act needs to be done : R.A. Joshi Vs S. Of Gujarat..AIR 2014SC 1554

Victim need not obtain leave for filing appeal against acquittal, it should be dealt as a regular appeal:SC

Victim need not obtain leave for filing appeal against acquittal, it should be dealt as a regular appeal, reiterates:Supreme Court Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice KM Joseph in Naval Kishore Mishra Vs State of U.P. & Ors. 

Breaking news

Breaking News: CBI Raids Home and Offices of Senior Advocates Indira Jaising and Anand Grover:source