• Judgments-H

  • 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

    • Hadia Case- Shafin Jahan Vs. Asokan K.M. & Ors- Criminal Appeal No. 366 OF 2018- SC-09.04.2018-- Annulment of marriage- Live-in Relationships- Live-in Partners [3JB-Full PDF Judgment].
    • Haji Ali Dargah Trust Case- Noorjehan Safia Niaz Dr. Versus State of Maharashtra & Haji Ali Dargah Trust, Public Interest Litigation No. 106 Of 2014, Judgment Dated: 26.08.2016, Bench: V. M. Kanade &
 Revati Mohite Dere, JJ, Bomaby High Cour- Issue, a PIL, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, where some social activists have alleged gender discrimination and arbitrary denial of access to women in the sanctum sanctorum at the Haji Ali Dargah.- Held, “38. Accordingly, the petition must succeed and is allowed. We hold that the ban imposed by the respondent No. 2 Trust, prohibiting women from entering the sanctum sanctorum of the Haji Ali Dargah contravenes Articles 14, 15 and 25 of the Constitution, and as such restore status-quo ante i.e. women be permitted to enter the sanctum sanctorum at par with men. The State and the respondent No. 2 Trust to take effective steps to ensure the safety and security of women at the said place of worship.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Harish Uppal, Ex-Capt. Vs. Union of India-17.12.2002- Writ Petition -(Civil)- 132 of 1988- 2003 (2) SCC 45- Bar Associations- Bar Councils- Lawyers- Right to strike- Boycotts of Courts [Full PDF Judgment-I] [Full PDF Judgment-II[Full PDF Judgment-III].
    • Harish Chandra Singh Rawat Versus Union of India and another, Writ Petition No. 795 of 2016, Judgment Dated: 29.03.2016, Bench: U.C. Dhyani, J., High Court Of Uttarakhand At Nainital- The Art.-356 Of the Constitution- Imposition of President Rule In Uttarakhand- Writ Petition by Harish Chandra Singh Rawat, the Chief Minister- The Double Bench of the High Court revoked the President Rule, and ordered a Floor test in the assembly [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Harita Sunil Parab Vs. State Of Nct Of Delhi And Others - Transfer Petition - Crl - Nos.254-255 Of 2017 With Transfer Petition- Crl.- Nos.253 Of 2017 - Sc - 28.03.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs. Syed Ahmad Ishaque And Others.- Civil Appeal No.-61 of 1954- 7JSC-09.12.1954- 1955- AIR- 233- 1955- SCR- (1)-1104- Writ of Certiorari- Four proposition laid- "(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting  errors of jurisdiction; (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction,   as   when   it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice; (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence  of this  is that the  court will not  review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous. (4) An error in the decision or determination itself may also be amenable to a writ of certiorari if it is a manifest [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Harshd S. Mehta Securities Scam-CBI Coodli Ravikumar- BomHC- 25.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Harvinder Kaur Vs. Jagdish Pal Singh Bindra-TA No. 133 of 2013(O&M)-P&HHC - 04.05.2015 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja- Civil Appeal No.- 4222 Of 2008-SC- 08.07.2008- (2008) 9 SCC 31- Service Law- Labour Law- Natural Justice- Inquiry- Dismissal- Termination- Held, "21. From the ratio laid down in B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727] it is explicitly clear that the doctrine of natural justice requires supply of a copy of the inquiry officer's report to the delinquent if such inquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority. It is also clear that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer is in the breach of natural justice. But it is equally clear that failure to supply a report of the inquiry officer to the delinquent employee would not ipso facto result in the proceedings being declared null and void and the order of punishment non est and ineffective. It is for the delinquent employee to plead and prove that non-supply of such report had caused prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice. If he is unable to satisfy the court on that point, the order of punishment cannot automatically be set aside.- Further held, "44. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that though supply of report of the inquiry officer is part and parcel of natural justice and must be furnished to the delinquent employee, failure to do so would not automatically result in quashing or setting aside of the order or the order being declared null and void. For that, the delinquent employee has to show “prejudice”. Unless he is able to show that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer has resulted in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, an order of punishment cannot be held to be vitiated. And whether prejudice had been caused to the delinquent employee depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down." [Full PDF Judgment]
    • HDFC Bank Ltd.  Vs. Prem Power Construction Pvt. Ltd.-CO. APP. 84 of 2013- DelHC-08.01.2018-S-433 & S-434-Companies Act, 1956- Service of notices & summons [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Hdfc Securities Ltd. & Ors Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Anr.- Criminal Appeal No. 1213 Of 2016 - Sc - 09.12.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Hemant Dhage, Ahmednagar Vs. Department of Legal Affairs, GOI, CIC/SA/A/2015/000435 (Video Conference-Ahmednagar), Judgment Dated: 12.03.2016, Bench: Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), IC, Chief Information Commissioner- Held, The Ministers are Government Authority [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Hemant Satti vs Mohan Satti & Ors- DelHC-07.11.2013- CS-(OS)-824 of 2010- Evidence & Witnesses- Proof & Proving- Pleading- Issues- Absence of specific pleading in the Plaint or WS or absence of issue being framed by the Court- What is not pleaded cannot be proved and no amount of evidence can be considered unless there is a background in the pleadings- No evidence can be received or appreciated unless pleaded- The onus has to be discharged by the parties by firstly pleading it [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Hem Chand vs. State of Jharkhand- Appeal (Crl.) 479 of 2008- SC- 13.03.2008- AIR 2008 SC 1903- Framing of Charge- "The Court at the stage of framing charge exercises a limited jurisdiction. It would only have to see as to whether a prima facie case has been made out. Whether a case of probable conviction for commission of an offence has been made out on the basis of the materials found during investigation should be the concern of the Court. It, at that stage, would not delve deep into the matter for the purpose of appreciation of evidence. It would ordinarily not consider as to whether the accused would be able to establish his defence, if any." [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Het Ram Beniwal & Ors. Vs. Raghuveer Singh & Ors. - Criminal Appeal No. 463 Of 2006 - Sc- 21.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage- New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Versus Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal Nos.10941-10942 Of 2013, Judgment Dated- 04.12.2015, ANIL R. Dave, J, Vikramajit Sen, Pinaki Chandra Ghose, Supreme Court Of India- Period of limitation for filing the written statement by the opponent U/S- 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Himani Malhotra  Vs. Indraprastha College For Women - W.P.(C) 11251 Of 2017- DelHC-02.01.2018- Whether a person can assert a right which stood relinquished earlier- Whether petition is impliedly hit by principle of res judicata- Waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a right- Res judicata or constructive Res judicata [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Hina And Another Respondent Vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others- WRIT-C- No. - 51421 of 2016- AllHC- 05.11.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Hina Versus Union Of India & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 1676 Of 2016-SC-23.02.2016, Bench: Kurian Joseph & Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Child Custody- Administrative Law- Age proof- SC held that the Higher Secondary School Leaving Certificate can be accepted as proof of age.- Held, “7. It is seen from the Eligibility Criteria, as extracted above, even an Affidavit was sufficient as proof of age. Be that as it may, in case, the copy of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate meets the requirement of the Eligibility Criteria, we fail to understand as to how does it make a difference in case the School Leaving Certificate is of the Higher Secondary School. The learned counsel for the Corporation was at pains to explain before us that the Secondary School Leaving Ceritificate is issued by the Board whereas the School Leaving Certificate Page 4 4 of the Higher Secondary School is issued by the School. School Leaving Certificate, as the very expression indicates, is issued by the School since the pupil leaves the school. Annexure P1, which was produced by the appellant before the Corporation is captioned as "School Leave Certificate". The requirement of the Corporation is only a proof regarding the age. No doubt, certain documents are specified in the Eligibility Criteria which would be accepted by the Corporation as proof of age. In case, a copy of the Secondary School Leaving Certificate can be accepted as proof of age, it does not even strike to common sense as to why the copy of the Higher Secondary School Leaving Certiciate, duly attested, cannot be accepted as proof of age. The High Court, however, is not correct in its approach. The clarification we have made does not in any way amend the criteria.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Hindu Front For Justice Thru. Secy. & 9 Ors. Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. U.P. Govt. & 2 Ors. Judgment Dated: 03.12.2015, Bench: V.K. Shukla,J., & Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II, J., Allahabad High Court- In this PIL, the Allahabad High Court upheld blocking of 25% of the benefits in a Pension scheme in favour of minorities as legal and valid. Upholding the validity of the Pension Scheme the court held that Minorities are a class in themselves and State is not prohibited in making welfare scheme for the minorities belonging to weaker section, provided it does not overreach and undermine the constitutional provisions [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. [State of Jharkhand Versus Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd.]- Civil Appeal No. 1093 Of 2006- 5JBSC- 14.12.2017- Arbitration Act, 1940- SC-2(c)- Jurisdictional Issues- “Whether this Court can entertain an application for making the award as Rule of the Court, even if it retains seisin over arbitral proceedings?”- Held, When an arbitrator is appointed by the Supreme Court and further directions are issued, it retains seisin over the arbitration proceedings and in such circumstances, the Supreme Court is the only court for the purposes of Section 2(c) of the Act [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Hiral P. Harsora-Kusum Narottamdas Harsora-SC-06.10.2016- Civil Appeal No. 10084 Of 2016-2016-10-SCC-165- S-2-q Of DV Act- Constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.- The word, "male" struck down from S-2(q)- Held, "46. We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court and declare that the words “adult male” in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted since these words do not square with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the proviso to Section 2(q), being rendered otiose, also stands deleted...." [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Honey Preet Insan Vs. State [of Delhi]- Delhi High Court-26.09.2017- Bail Application No.-1983 of 2017- Whenever, an application for anticipatory bail is made before a Court, where an FIR has been lodged elsewhere i.e. outside the territorial jurisdiction of that Court, the Court is duty bound to consider whether the applicant is a regular or bona fide resident of a place within the local limits of that Court and is not a camouflage to evade the process of law. If the Court is not satisfied on this aspect, the application deserves to be rejected without going into the merits of the case [Full PDF Judgment].
    • H. N. Jagannath Versus State of Karnataka- SC-06.12.2017-SLP (Civil) No. 33813 of 2011- Land Acquisition- Civil Court Jurisdiction- Barred- Suits of any nature, what-so-ever- Not maintainable [Full PDF Judgment].
    • H. Lyngdoh & Ors. Vs. Gromlyn Lyngdoh- Civil Appeal No. 1929-SC- 02.03.1971- Bench: Reddy, P. Jaganmohan & Shelat J.M, JJ, Supreme Court Of India, Citation: 1971 AIR 1110 1971 SCR (3) 903 1971 SCC (1) 754- Section-107. Powers of Appellate Court.- Duty of the appellate Judges in dealing with the judgment of the lower court- In the objective discharge of judicial functions there is little justification nay, none-at-all to assume any attitude other than of judicial restraint or to use a language while referring to one’s colleagues other than that which has been hitherto adopted by long usage [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Hridaya Ranjan Prasad Verma Vs State of Bihar- Appeal (Crl.) 313-314 of 2000- SC-31.03.2000- (2000) 4 SCC 168- Quashing- Criminal Proceedings- IPC- S-418, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 477(a), 506(2), 120(b)-Held, “…The distinction between mere breach of contract and the offence of cheating is a fine one.”.-  Further held, “..It would depend upon the intention of the accused at the time of inducement..”- Further held, “ .. Mere breach of contract cannot give rise to criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of transaction that is the time when the offence is said to have been committed. Therefore, it is the intention which is gist of the offence.”.  Further held, “From his mere failure to keep up promise subsequently such an culpable intention right at the beginning that is when he made the promise cannot be presumed” [Full PDF Judgments].
    • HS BEDI Versus National Highway Authority Of India, RFA 784/2010, Judgment Dated-22.01.2016, Bench: J.R. Midha, J, Delhi High Court- Prosecute the unscrupulous litigants U/S-209 IPC who file false claims and written statements before the Courts “to prevent the abuse of process of law, secure the ends of justice, keep the path of justice clear of obstructions and give effect to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court...” in various judgments.: J R Midha, J, of Delhi High Court directs the Courts below [Full PDF Judgment].
    • H Srinivas [State by Lokayuktha Police Vs. H. Srinivas- CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.775 of 2018- SC-18.05.2018- Quashing of criminal proceedings-  irregularity and illegality [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Hussain and Anr.  Vs. Union of India- Criminal Appeal NO.509 OF 2017-SC-09.03.2017- Bail- Speedy Trial- Art.-21 of Constitution of India- Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [NDPS Act] [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  

    %MCEPASTEBIN%

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