• Judgments-B

  • A | B | D | E | F | G | H | I | | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z  

    Judgments-Index

    • Babloo Chauhan Alias Dabloo  Vs State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi- DelHC- 30.11.2017- Crl.A. 157/2013-  S-389 (1) & (3) CrPC- Suspension of sentence- Fines- Default sentences- Remedies for wrongful incarceration  [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Babubhai Versus State of Gujarat- SC-26.08.2010-Crl. Appeal-1599 of 2010- 2010-12-SCC-254- Quashing of Second FIR/ Cross FIR- Right of an accused to fair trial and fair investigation- Held, “34…Not only the fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. Investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in tainted and biased manner. Where non-interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere’ [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Baij Nath Prasad Vs. Madan Mohan Das, AIR 1952 All 108– Judge & Judiciary- Held, that a party making a private communication in the form of private letters was totally out of place in Courts, as it is likely to give rise to a feeling that he has familiarity with the presiding Magistrate  [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Balbir Singh Vs. UOI And Ors.- W.P.(C) 2925 of 2013-DelHC-07.01.2015-2015 SCC OnLine Del 6418- Relevant considerations for grant of compassionate allowance are (i) years of service rendered by an employee, (ii) means of sustenance, and (iii) number of family members to support etc. [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Baldev Singh- State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh (1999) 6 SCC 172- Seminal constitution bench judgment on S-50 of NDPS [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Baljeet Singh (Dr.) Vs. State NCT Of Delhi & Anr.-W.P.- Crl.- 503 of 2013, DelHC- 02.05.2013- Bench: Pratibha Rani, J, Delhi High Court [Full PDF Judgment].- Judgments On Quashing Of FIR- Seeking Quashing of FIR- under Article-226 of the Constitution & S-482 of CrPC.- The FIR U/S- 498-A/406/34 IPC  [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Balkrishna Porwal v. PIO, Department of Posts- CIC-POSTS-A-2018-102584- CIC-25.06.2018- It Is A Human Right Of Person Accused Of Sexual Harassment To Get Information To Defend Himself- Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013 [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Balwant Singh And Another V. State Of Punjab' Air 1995 Sc 1785- Bail- S-121-A IPC- Waging Of War Against The State [Full Pdf Judgment].
    • Balmukund Singh Gautam Vs. Smt. Neena Vikram Verma- Election Petition No.23 of 2014- MPHC- 18.06.2018- Allegations of corrupt practice- " 'Gods do not sit in the High Court"- Observed- "..mere criticism of the judgment of the High Court in public speech, in the opinion of this Court, shall not tantamount to corrupt practice as defined under section 123 of the R.P. Act".- Test to be applied, reiterated, observing that the R.P.Act does not accept the doctrine of constructive knowledge. [Full PDF Judgment].
    • (The) Bar Association, Dhamtari Vs. The High Court Of Chhattisgarh - Writ Petition -C -No.3385 Of 2017 - ChHC - 05.01.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Bilquis Zakiuddin Bandookwala Vs. Shehnaz Shabbir Bandukwala- REVIEW PETITION NO. 41 OF 2010- BomHC-16.12.2010- Defendant Had A Right To Begin" The Evidence [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. R. Rajappa- SC-21.02.1978, 1978 AIR 548= (1978) 3 SCC 213- Issue, period of limitation in ID Act/ Labour Cases- S-33C- ID Act- Held, clubs were also industries. A reading of the said judgment makes it clear that the applicability of the Act was exempted only in a case in which the enterprise was clearly charitable in nature, without any financial transaction being involved [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Bansi Lal v. State of Haryana, 1978 Cri LJ 472 at p. 477 (P & H) [Full PDF Judgment].
    • BCI [Bar Council Of India] Vs. A K Balaji- Foreign law firms/companies or foreign lawyers- Cannot practice profession of law in India either in the litigation or in nonlitigation side- there was no bar for the foreign law firms or foreign lawyers to visit India for a temporary period on a “fly in and fly out” basis for the purpose of giving legal advice to their clients in India regarding foreign law or their own system of law and on diverse international legal issues. We hold that the expression “fly in and fly out” will only cover a casual visit not amounting to “practice” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Basavaraj R. Patil and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others-Case No. 3828 of 1999-SC-11.10.2000-Citation-2000-8-SCC-740-CrPC-S-313- under certain exigent circumstances, the trial Court may allow the accused to answer the questions put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. through his advocate in a written form by way of affidavit, instead of answering in the Court by his physical presence [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.- 2148 of 1977-SC-11.09.1978-Citations-1979-AIR-262=1979-SCR-1-590=1979-SCC-2-88- Notwithstanding any laws to the contrary- Non-Obstante Clause- “23.....“Inconsistent”, according to Black's Legal Dictionary, means “mutually repugnant or contradictory; contrary, the one to the other so that both cannot stand, but the acceptance or establishment of the one implies the abrogation or abandonment of the other”. “…These social projections and operational limitations of the two statutory provisions must be grasped to resolve the legal conundrum.........”  [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Bela Kapoor & Ors Vs. Vandana Kapoor & Ors.- Cs - Os - 1375 Of 2010 Ia No.8887 Of 2010 - Delhc-21.03.2013 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • BEST Worker's Union Vs. Union of India- Writ Petition No.  2334   OF  2014 - BomHC- 14.10.2016-Quashing-Legislation [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Bhadresh Bipinbhai Sheth Vs. State Of Gujarat & Another- Criminal-Appeal Nos. 1134-1135 Of 2015-SC-01.09.2015- Bench: A.K. Sikri & Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ, Supreme Court Of India: Cancellation Of Bail- Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail- Provision of anticipatory bail enshrined in S-438 CrPC. is conceptualised under Art-21 of the Constitution which relates to personal liberty. [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Bhagwat Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police-Contempt Petition No. 4998 of in Criminal WP No. 6607 Of 1981-SC-25.04.1985-CItations-2-SCC 537=AIR-1985-SC-1285- It is no more open to any Court to prematurely terminate a criminal case (Quash an FIR) behind the back of the complainant/whistle blower without giving him an opportunity of being heard [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Bhajan Lal: State of Haryana and Others Versus. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others- SC-21.11.1990- 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335; 1992 Cri LJ 527; AIR 1992 SC 604- Quashing-FIR- If the first information report prima facie does not disclose any offence, then the high court can quash the first information report- Law on the question of ultimate jurisdiction of High Court in exercise of the power vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of the CrPC was settled in this Case- Held, the power of quashing should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases.- The High Court could exercise its discretion favorably in the following eventualities: “8.1. In the exercise of the extra-ordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the following categories of cases are given by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelized and inflexible guide- 3 myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised: (a) where the allegations made in the First Information Report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima-facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused; (b) where the allegations in the First Information Report and other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code; (c) where the un-controverted allegations made in the FIR or ’complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose 265 the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused; (d) where the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code; (e) where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused; (f) where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party; (g) where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.". [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Bharat Aluminium Co. Versus Kaiser Aluminium Technical Service, Inc., Civil Appeal No.7019 OF 2005, Judgment Dated: 06.09.2012, Bench: S.H.Kapadia, CJI, D.K.Jain, Surinder Singh Nijjar, Ranjana Prakash Desai & Jagdish Singh Khehar, JJ, Supreme Court OF India [Five Judge Constitutional Bench  PDF Judgment] [Residual PDF Judgment of the Constitution Bench Judgment]- Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996- Extent & Scope Of The Part-I-International Commercial Arbitration- The Issue which fell for consideration of the Constitutional bench arose out the following arbitration Clause, as contained in an Agreement: “Article 17.1 – Any dispute or claim arising out of or relating to this Agreement shall be in the first instance, endeavour to be settled amicably by negotiation between the parties hereto and failing which the same will be settled by arbitration pursuant to the English Arbitration Law and subsequent amendments thereto. Article 17.2 – The arbitration proceedings shall be carried out by two Arbitrators one appointed by BALCO and one by KATSI chosen freely and without any bias. The court of Arbitration shall be held wholly in London, England and shall use English language in the proceeding. The findings and award of the Court of Arbitration shall be final and binding upon the parties. Article 22 – Governing Law – This agreement will be governed by the prevailing law of India and in case of Arbitration, the English law shall apply.”- Consequently, the arbitration in this case took place in England- Indian courts- District Court, as also the concerned High Court, i.e. the High Court of Judicature at Chattisgarh, Bilaspur declined to entertain the Application seeking setting aside of the award- Held, “198. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Arbitration Act, 1996 has accepted the territoriality principle which has been adopted in the UNCITRAL Model Law. Section 2(2) makes a declaration that Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 shall apply to all arbitrations which take place within India. We are of the considered opinion that Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 would have no application to International Commercial Arbitration held outside India. Therefore, such awards would only be subject to the jurisdiction of the Indian courts when the same are sought to be enforced in India in accordance with the provisions contained in Part II of the Arbitration Act, 1996. In our opinion, the provisions contained in Arbitration Act, 1996 make it crystal clear that there can be no overlapping or intermingling of the provisions contained in Part I with the provisions contained in Part II of the Arbitration Act, 1996.”- Further held, “199....the provision contained in Section 2(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is not in conflict with any of the provisions either in Part I or in Part II of the Arbitration Act, 1996. In a foreign seated international commercial arbitration, no application for interim relief would be maintainable under Section 9 or any other provision, as applicability of Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is limited to all arbitrations which take place in India. Similarly, no suit for interim injunction simplicitor would be maintainable in India, on the basis of an international commercial arbitration with a seat outside India.”- Further held, Part I of the Arbitration Act, 1996 is applicable only to all the arbitrations which take place within the territory of India.- Overruled the three-Judge Bench decisions of this Court in Bhatia International Versus Bulk Trading S.A. and another, (2002) 4 SCC 1052, as also in Venture Global Engineering Vs. Satyam Computer Services Ltd. & Anr., 2008 (4) SCC 190.- Exercising its the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Constitution Bench however, held that the law declared by it would only operate prospectively. In other words, all agreements executed prior to 06.09.2012 were to be governed by the decision in Bhatia International.- The three Judge Bench held, "the court cannot adopt an approach for interpreting a statute. The terms of the contract will have to be understood in the way the parties wanted and intended them to be. In that context, particularly in agreements of arbitration, where party autonomy is the grundnorm, how the parties worked out the agreement, is one of the indicators to decipher the intention, apart from the plain or grammatical meaning of the expressions and the use of the expressions at the proper places in the agreement. Contextually, it may be noted that in the present case, the respondent had invoked the provisions of English law for the purpose of the initiation of the unsettled disputes. It has hence, while interpreting an agreement, to be kept in mind that the parties, intended to avoid impracticable and inconvenient processes and procedures in working out the agreement [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Bhartiben Bipinbhai Tamboli Vs. State Of Gujarat & 3.- Special Criminal Application -Domestic Violance - No. 5672 Of 2016 - AhdHC-08.01.2018- [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Bharat Sales Ltd. vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India- (1998)-Case No.-- SC-05.02.1998-Citation-3-SCC-1- Sub-letting and its Attributes [Full PDF Judgments]
    • Bharati Press Vs. Chief Secretary- PatHC-13.10.1950- 1951 CriLJ 309- AIR 1951 Pat 12- Fundamental rights- Free speech and expression-Article 19(1)(a)- “If a person were to go on inciting murder or other cognizable offences either through the press or by word of mouth, he would be free to do so with impunity”- Later these observations attracted severe flak from the SC, where Justice Mahajan said that Prasad’s judgment revealed “a complete lack of understanding of the precise scope” of the Romesh Thapar and Brij Bhushan decisions [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Bharwada Bhogin Bhai Harji Bhai Vs. State of  Gujrat - 1983 CrLJ 1096= AIR 1983 SC 753- Ulterior motive- Discrepancies not amounting to contradiction  [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Bher Chand Tikaji Bora [Enforcement Officer, Ted, Bombay Vs Bher Chand Tikaji Bora And Anr.-SC-09.04.1999- (1999) 5 SCC 720 - Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail [Full PDF Judgment].
    • B. Himmatlal Agrawal Vs. Competition Commission Of India & Anr.- Civil Appeal No. 5029 Of 2018- SC-18.05.2018- Competition Commission of India- CCI- Pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Bhupendra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh- Criminal Appeal No. 1774 of 2008- SC-11.11.2013- (2014) 2 SCC 106- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- Held, unnatural death whether homicidal or suicidal would attract S-304B IPC [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Bimal Gurung Vs. Union Of India & Ors.- Writ Petition -Criminal- No. 182 Of 2017 - SC-16.03.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Bimolangshu Roy (Dead) Through Lrs Vs. State Of Assam & Another - Transferred Case (Civil) No.169 Of 2006-SC-26.07.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Bina K. Ramani Versus State- DelHC-5.2.2010-M.C. No.3605 Of 2009 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Bimal Krishna Kundu [The State Of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Bimal Krishna Kundu & Anr.- SC-03.10.1997- Cancellation of Anticipatory Bail [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Binod Kumar v. State of Bihar, Crl. Appeal No. 2327/2014- SC-30.10.2014, Bench- T.S. Thakur, J.: R. Banumathi, JJ, Citations- 2014(10) SCC 663: 2014(12) JT 286: 2014(12) SCALE 465: 2014(8) Supreme 112: 2014(9) SLT 684: 2014(4) Crimes 305(SC): 2015(1) JCC 664  [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Binoy Viswam Vs. Union Of India & Ors.- SC-09.06.2017- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 247 Of 2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Birad Mal Singhvi Vs Anand Purohit- SC-02.08.1988- 1988 AIR 1796- POCSO- Age determination [Full PDF Judgment].
    • B Karunakar [Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar]- (1993) 4 SCC 727- Service Law- Labour Law- Natural Justice- Inquiry- Dismissal- Termination- A delinquent employee has a right to receive the report of the inquiry officer before the disciplinary authority takes a decision regarding his guilt or innocence. Denial of a reasonable opportunity to the employee by not furnishing the inquiry report before such decision on the charges was found to be in violation of principles of natural justice.- Held, "[v] ……..When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an “unnatural expansion of natural justice” which in itself is antithetical to justice." [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Board of Auqaf, West Bengal  Vs Golam Mustapha- MAT 901 of 2016- CalHC- 15.06.2018- Waqf tribunal has no supervisory jurisdiction on waqf boards State of West Bengal [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Board Of Control For Cricket Versus Cricket Association Of Bihar, Civil SC-21.10.2016-Appeal No.4235 Of 2014 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Bobbili Ramakrishna Raju Yadav & Ors. Versus State Of Andhra Pradesh & Anr, Criminal Appeal No. 45 OF 2016, Judgment Dated: 19.01.2016, Bench: Thakur, A.K. Sikri, R. Banumathi, JJ,, Supreme Court Of India- Criminal prosecution for the offence U/Ss. 498A, 304B IPC and under Sections 3, 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.- “13. Giving of dowry and the traditional presents at or about the time of wedding does not in any way raise a presumption that such a property was thereby entrusted and put under the dominion of the parents-in-law of the bride or other close relations so as to attract ingredients of Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act..."- The FIR U/S- 498-A/406/34 IPC [Full Bench PDF Judgment].
    • Bobby Art International etc. Vs. Om Pal Singh Hoon & Others- Civil Appeal Nos. 7523-7525-27 AND 7524-SC-01.05.1996-Citation-AIR 1996 SC-1846-Central Board of Film Certification-Film Certification Appellate Tribunal [FCAT] [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Bodhisattwa Gautam Vs Subhra Chakraborty- Writ Petition(Criminal) 2675 Of 1995 - SC-15.12.1995- AIR 1996 SC 922- right of survivor of compensation- Survivor- Right to compensation [Full PDF Judgment]
    • BPTP Ltd. Vs. CPI India Limited- Arb.A. No.8/2015 & OMP No.79 of 2015, Bench-S Murlidhar, J, Delhi High Court, Judgment Dated-03.07.2015- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996- Sections-9, 17 & 37- Scheme, Extent & Scope- Appeal Against Arbitral Award- The scheme of Section 37 of the Act is that an order denying or granting relief under Section-17 of the Act could be challenged by way  of  an  appeal-  While  Section-17  itself  may  not  result  in  an  order enforceable by a Court, once that order is tested and is affirmed in an appeal  under  Section-37  of  the  Act,  the  order  of  the  appellate  Court should  prevail.  Such  interpretation  would  ensure  that  the  exercise  of getting the Arbitral Tribunal (AT) to pass interim orders under Section 17 is not rendered futile. The statutory remedy under Section 17 cannot be allowed to be frustrated  if  the  alternate  dispute  resolution  mechanism  of  arbitration has to be effective and efficacious. Judgments On Appointment Of Arbitrators [S-11] [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Bridgestone India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Inderpal Singh- Criminal Appeal No.1557 Of 2015-SC-24.11.2015, Bench- Jagdish Singh Khehar, J & R. Banumathi, Supreme Court Of India- Territorial Jurisdiction Of Courts [Full PDF Judgment].
    • B.S. Joshi & Ors. State of Haryana & Anr., Appeal (Crl.) 383 Of 2003, Date Of Judgment: 13.03.2003, Bench: Y.K. Sabharwal & H.K. Sema, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, Citation: (2003) 4 SCC 675 [Full PDF Judgment].- Quashing- Settlement- The question that falls for determination in the instant case is about the ambit of the inherent powers of the High Courts under Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure (Code) read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash criminal proceedings.- The scope and ambit of power under Section 482 has been examined by this Court in catena of earlier decisions but in the present case that is required to be considered in relation to matrimonial disputes.- The matrimonial disputes of the kind in the present case have been on considerable increase in recent times resulting in filing of complaints by the wife under Sections 498A and 406, IPC not only against the husband but his other family members also. W hen such matters are resolved either by wife agreeing to rejoin the matrimonial home or mutual separation of husband and wife and also mutual settlement of other pending disputes as a result whereof both sides approach the High Court and jointly pray for quashing of the criminal proceedings or the First Information Report or complaint filed by the wife under Section s 498A and 406, IPC, can the prayer be declined on the ground that since the offences are no n-compoundable under Section 320 of the Code and, therefore, it is not permissible for the Court to quash the criminal proceedings or FIR or complaint.- The SC quashed the FIR- The FIR U/S- 498-A/406/34 IPC [Full Bench PDF Judgment].
    • Budhia Auto Associate-Corporate-Co.-Winding Up Company Petition [Full PDF Judgment].

    Kindly CLICK HERE or e-mail us at office@hellocounsel.com if you are facing any Legal Issue and want to have Legal Consultations with the empanelled Lawyers at Hello Counsel.

    A | B | D | E | F | G | H | I | | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z  

Live2Support.com
All original content on these pages is fingerprinted and certified by Digiprove