• Judgments-P

  • 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

    • Pacquik Industries- The Pradeshiya Industrial & Investment Corporation Of U.P. Ltd. Versus M/S Pacquik Industries Ltd. & Ors.- Co.App. 54/2013, Judgment Dated: 28.01.2016, Bench: Gita Mittal & P.S.Teji, JJ, Delhi High Court- Banking & Finance- Issue, Unnecessary Litigation by Government & Public Sector Undertakings (paras 201 to 2017) - The judgment opens up with the following excerpts, “"Power vested by the State in a Public Authority should be viewed as a trust coupled with duty to be exercised in larger public and social interest. Power is to be exercised strictly adhering to the statutory provisions and factsituation of a case. 'Public Authorities cannot play fast and loose with the powers vested in them'. A decision taken in arbitrary manner contradicts the principle of legitimate expectation. An Authority is under a legal obligation to exercise the power reasonably and in good faith to effectuate the purpose for which power stood conferred. In this context, "in good faith" means "for legitimate reasons". It must be exercised bona fide for the purpose and for none other [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy- Criminal Appeal No. 1499 Of 2011-SC-29-07-2011- (2011) 12 SCC 437)”- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Panchhi and others Vs. State of U.P.- Writ Petition -Crl.-No. 50 Of 1998-SC-19.08.1998- (AIR 1998 SC 2726)- Evidence- Evidence- Child Witness- competency of the child witness- Reliability of the evidence tendered by a child witness- The evidence tendered by the child witness has to be evaluated with greater circumspection, since a child is susceptible to be swayed by what others tell them and thus, a child witness is an easy prey to tutoring [Full Pdf Judgment]. 
    • Pankaj Jain Vs. Union Of India & Anr. - Criminal Appeal No. 321 Of 2018 - SC-23.02.2018- CrPC-S-88-Bail [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Pankajakshi (Dead) Through L.Rs. & Others Versus Chandrika & Others Civil Appeal No.201 of 2005,  Judgment Dated: 25.02.2016, Bench: Anil R. Dave & Kurian Joseph & Shiva Kirti Singh & Adarsh Kumar Goel & R.F. Nariman, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Challenge to the virus of the Act.- Constitution Of India- Art- 142- Issue, "Whether Supreme Court can under Articles 136 and 142 of the Constitution direct in any appropriate case a reference to a third judge to resolve the conflict arising between two judges of the High Court hearing an appeal, on a question of fact.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Pappu- State of Maharashtra Vs. Pappu, Criminal Appeal No. 944/2014, Judgment Dated- 24/04/2014, Bench- P. Sathasivam, C.J., Ranjan Gogoi, J & N.V. Ramana, J, Citations- 2014(11) SCC 244= 2014(5) SCALE 584= 2014(4) Supreme 636= 2014(4) SLT 521= 2014(3) SCC(Cr) 350- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Parkash Singh Badal Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.- Appeal -Civil-5636 Of 2006 - SC-06.12.2006- AIR 2007 SC 1274- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC-, Held, "The ultimate test, therefore, is whether the allegations have any substance. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold because a political opponent or a person with political difference raises an allegation of commission of offence. Therefore, the plea of mala fides as raised cannot be maintained."- In case there is some substance in the allegations and material exists to substantiate the complicity of the applicant, the case is to be examined in its full conspectus and the proceedings should not be quashed only on the ground that the same had been initiated with mala fides to wreak vengeance or to achieve an ulterior goal [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Patel Field Marshal Agencies Ltd Vs. PM Diesels Ltd.- SC-29.11.2017-Civil Appeal Nos.4767-4769 OF 2001- IPR- Trademark- IPR Infringement Suit- Trade and Merchandise Marks Act 1958- Trade Marks Act, 1999- Independent Proceedings Against Validity Of Trademark Not Maintainable If The Issue Is Abandoned In Infringement Suit [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Pawan Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana-SC-09.02.1998-bride burning’ and ‘dowry deaths’- Dowry Prohibition Act in 1961- IPC- S-306, 498-A & 304-B IPC  [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Pawan Kumar Vs State of HP- Criminal Appeal No. 775 Of 2017- SC-28.04.2017- POSCO- Ocular Evidence, Medical Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Police Investigation- Age Determination- Freedom & Dignity of Women- Women’s Right To Love And Reject [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Pentel Kabushiki Kaisha & Anr. Vs. M/S Arora Stationers & Ors.-CS(COMM) No.361 of 2017-DelHC-08.01.2018- S-22- Intellectual Property Rights [IPR]- Designs Act, 2000 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) Versus Union of India, WP(C) 256/1991, Judgment Dated- 18/12/1996, Bench- Kuldip Singh, J. & S. Saghir Ahmad, J., Supreme Court Of India, Citation- 1997 AIR(SC) 568: 1996(Supp-10) SCR 321: 1997(1) SCC 301: 1997(1) JT 288: 1996(9) SCALE 318: 1996(8) Supreme 673: 1997(1) UJ 187: 1996(4) CCC 277(SC): 1997(1) CLT 345(SC): 1997(1) AD(SC) 137 [Full PDF Judgment]- Constitution of India- Article 21- Right of privacy- Telephone tapping- Permissibility- Except under a fair procedure established by law, it is not permissible- Telephone tapping- Constitution of India- Article 14.- Held- Telephone-tapping is a section invasion of an individual's privacy. With the growth of highly sophisticated communication technology, the right to hold telephone conversation, in the privacy of one's home or office without interference, is increasingly susceptible to abuse. It is not doubt correct that every Government, however democratic, exercises some degree of subrosa as a part of its intelligence out-fit but at the same time citizen `z right to privacy has to be protected from being abused by the authorities of the day.- The right to privacy- by itself- has not been identified under the Constitution. As a concept it may be too broad and moralistic to define it judicially. Whether right to privacy can be claimed or has been infringed in a given case would depend on the facts of the said case. But the right to hold a telephone conversation in the privacy of ones home or office without interference can certainly be claimed as "right to privacy". Conversations on the telephone are often of an intimate and confidential character. Telephone-conversation is a part of modern man's life. It is considered so important that more and more people are carrying mobile telephone instruments in their pockets. Telephone conversation is an important facet of a man's private life. Right to privacy would certainly include telephone-conversation in the privacy of one's home or office. Telephone-tapping would, thus, infract Article 21 of the Constitution of India unless it is permitted under the procedure established by law.- Further Held- We have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that right to privacy is a part of the right to "life and "personal liberty" enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Once the facts in a given case constitute a right to privacy, Article 21 is attracted. The said right cannot be curtailed "except according to procedure established by law".- Head Note-II- Constitution of India- Articles 19(1)(a) & 19(2)- Freedom of speech- Telephone tapping- Permissibility- Except for the grounds of restrictions permissible under Article 19(2), it is unconstitutional- Telephone tapping.- Held- Right to freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This freedom means the right to express ones convictions and opinions freely by word of mouth, writing, printing, picture, or in any other manner. When a person is talking on telephone, he is exercising his right to freedom of speech and expression. Telephone-tapping unless it comes within the grounds of restrictions under Article 19(1) would infract Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.- Head Note-III- Administrative Law- Executive discretion- Likely abuse of discretion- Directions given evolving the procedure/considerations for exercise of discretion.-Head Note-IV- Administrative Law- Legislation- Subordinate legislation- Failure to frame rules for exercise of powers under the statute- Directions given evolving the procedure/considerations for exercise of discretion.- Head Note-V- Administrative Law- Judicial Review- Academic decision- Likely abuse of discretion- Directions given evolving the procedure/considerations for exercise of discretion.- Head Note-VI- Interpretation of Statutes- Constitutional provision- Effect of International Law/Covenants- The covenant not contrary to municipal law of the land- Such rules of customary law shall be deemed to be incorporated in the domestic law- Constitution of India- Article 51- Effect of International Law- Constitution of India- Article 13- Law in force- International law.- Head Note-VII- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966- Article 17- Right of privacy- Rights of Indian citizens- The covenant being not contrary to municipal law of the land, shall be deemed to be incorporated in the domestic law- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948- Article 12- Constitution of India- Article 51.- Held- India is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 Article 17 of the said covenant is as under:- "Article 17- 1. No one shall be subject to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy, family, human or correspondence, nor to lawful attacks on his honour and reputation.- 2. Every one has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks."- Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 is almost in similar terms.- It is almost accepted proposition of law that the rules of customary international law which are not contrary to the municipal law shall be deemed to be incorporated in the domestic law.- Article 51 of the Constitution directs that the State shall endeavour to inter alia, foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organised peoples with one another.- Article 17 of the International Covenant does not go contrary to any part of our Municipal law, Article 21 of the Constitution has, therefore, been interpreted in conformity with the international law.- Contract- Inability to fulfil a contractual obligation- Imprisionment- No person should be imprisoned for such inability- Civil Procedure Code, 1908- Sections 47 & 51- Execution by imprisonment- International Covenant on Civil & Political Rights, 1966- Article 11- Practice and Procedure- Execution by imprisonment.- Telegraph Act, 1885- Section 5(2)- Telephone tapping- Exercise of power- Considerations for- Telephone tapping.- Held- Section 5(2) of the Act permits the interception of messages in accordance with the provisions of the said Section. "Occurrence of any public emergency" or "in the interest of public safety" are the sine qua non for the application of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act. Unless a public emergency has occurred or the interest of public safety demands, the authorities have no jurisdiction to exercise the powers under the said Section. Public emergency would mean the prevailing of a sudden condition or state of affairs affecting the people at large calling for immediate action. The expression "public safety" means the state or condition of freedom from danger or risk for the people at large. When either of these two conditions are not in existence, the Central Government or a State Government or the authorised officer cannot resort to telephone tapping even though there is satisfaction that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interests of sovereignty and integrity of India etc. In other words, even if the Central Government is satisfied that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of the sovereignty and integrity of India or the security of the State or friendly relations with sovereign States or public order or for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence, it cannot intercept the messages or resort to telephone tapping unless a public emergency has occurred or the interest of public safety or the existence of the interest of public safety requires. Neither the occurrence of public emergency nor the interest of public safety are secretive conditions or situations. Either of the situations would be apparent to reasonable person.- The first step under Section 5(2) of the Act, therefore, is the occurrence of any public emergency or the existence of a public- safety interest. Thereafter the competent authority under Section 5(2) of the Act is empowered to pass an order of interception after recording its satisfaction that it is necessary or expedient so to do in the interest of (i) sovereignty and integrity of India, (ii) the security of the State, (iii) friendly relations with foreign States, (iv) public order or (v) for preventing incitement to the commission of an offence.- But the substantive law as laid down in Section 5(2) of the Act must have procedural backing so that the exercise of power is fair and reasonably. The said procedure itself must be just, fair and reasonable.- Head Note-VIII- Telegraph Act, 1885- Sections 5(2) & 7(2)(b)- Telephone tapping- Procedure- Failure to frame rules- Absence of just and fair procedure for regulating exercise of powers- Directions formulating the guidelines for exercise of power, given- Telephone tapping.-- Held- We are of the view that there is considerable force in the contention that no procedure has been prescribed for the exercise of the power under Section 5(2) of the Act. It is not disputed that no rules have been framed under Section 7(2)(b) of the Act for providing the precautions to be taken for preventing the improper interception or disclosure of messages. In the absence of just and fair procedure for regulating the exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Act, it is not possible to safeguard the rights of the citizens guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(a) and 21 of the Constitution of India.- It is for the Central Government to make rules under Section 7 of the Act. Rule 7(2)(b) specifically provides that the Central Government may make rules laying down the precautions to be taken for preventing the improper interception or disclosure of messages. The Act was enacted in the year 1885. The power to make rules under Section 7 of the Act has been there for over a century but the Central Government has not thought it proper to frame the necessary rules despite severe criticism of the manner in which the power under Section 5(2) has been exercised. It is entirely for the Central Government to make rules on the subject but till the time it is done the right to privacy of an individual has to be safeguarded. In order to rule-out arbitrariness in the exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Act and till the time the Central Government lays down just, fair and reasonable procedure under Section 7(2)(b) of the Act, it is necessary to lay down procedural safeguards for the exercise of power under Section 5(2) of the Act so that the right to privacy of a person is protected.- We,therefore,order and direct as under:- 1. An order for telephone-tapping in terms of Section 5(2) of the Act shall not be issued except by the Home Secretary, Government of India (Central Government) and Home Secretaries of the State Governments. In an urgent case the power may be delegated to an officer of the Home Department of the Government of India and the State Governments not below the rank of Joint Secretary. Copy of the order shall be sent to the Review Committee concerned within one week of the passing of the order.- 2. The order shall require the person to whom it is addressed to intercept in the course of their transmission by means a public telecommunication system, such communications as are described in the order. The order may also require the person to whom it is addressed to disclose the intercepted material to such persons and in such manner as are described in the order.- 3. The matters to be taken into account in considering whether an order is necessary under Section 5(2) of the Act shall include whether the information which is considered necessary to acquire could reasonably be acquired by other means.- 4. The interception required under Section 5(2) of the Act shall be the interception of such communications as are sent to or from one or more addresses, specified in the order, being an address or addresses likely to be used for the transmission of communications to or from, from one particular person specified or described in the order or one particular set of premises specified or described in the order.- 5. The order under Section 5(2) of the Act shall, unless renewed, cease to have effect at the end of the period of two month from the date of issue. The authority which issued the order may, at any time before the end of two months period renew the order if it considers that it is necessary to continue the order in terms of Section 5(2) of the Act. The total period for the operation of the order shall not exceed six months.- 6. The authority which issued the order shall maintain the following records:-(a) the intercepted communications,- (b) the extent to which the material is disclosed,- (c) the number of persons and their identity to whom any of the material is disclosed.- (d) the extent to which the material is copied and- (e) the number of copies made of any of the material.- 7. The use of the intercepted material shall be limited to the minimum that is necessary in terms of Section 5(2) of the Act.- 8. Each copy made of any of the intercepted material shall be destroyed as soon as its retention is no longer necessary in terms of Section 5(2) of the Act.- 9. There shall be a Review Committee consisting of Cabinet Secretary, the Law Secretary and the Secretary, Telecommunication at the level of the Central Government. The Review Committee at the State level shall consist of Chief Secretary, Law Secretary and another member, other than the Home Secretary, appointed by the State Government.- (a) The Committee shall on its own, within two months of the passing of the order by the authority concerned, investigate whether there is or has been a relevant order under Section 5(2) of the Act. Where there is or has been an order whether there has been any contravention of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act.- (b) If on an investigation the Committee concludes that there has been a contravention of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act, it shall set aside the order under scrutiny of the Committee. It shall further direct the destruction of the copies of the intercepted material.- (c) If on investigation, the Committee comes to the conclusion that there has been no contravention of the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Act, it shall record the finding to the effect.- Constitution of India- Article 14- Exercise of power- Likely abuse of power- Directions given evolving the procedure/considerations for exercise of power of telephone tapping [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Pepsi Food Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors.- SC-04.11.1997- AIR 1998 SC 128= (1998) 5 SCC 749- Art- 226 & S-482 CrPC- Quashing- Summonig Order- Held, “The inherent power of the court should not be exercised to stifle the legitimate prosecution but can be exercised to save the accused to undergo the agony of a criminal trial.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Pfizer Limited & Anr Petitioners Versus Union Of India & Anr.- W.P.-C- No.2212 Of 2016- DelHC-01.12.2016-Quashing-Govt. Notification [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Phantom Films Private Limited Vs. The Central Board of Certification, 2016 (4) ARB 593- Central Board of Film Certification- Film Certification Appellate Tribunal [FCAT]  [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Philip David Dexter Versus State NCT Of Delhi & Anr., CM No. 1107/2013 in FAO No. 29/2013 & WP(Crl.) No.1562/2012, Judgment Dated: 02.04.2013, Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog & Pratibha Rani, JJ., Delhi High Court, Citations: 2013(135) DRJ 537: 2013(2) Crimes 208(LN)- Child Custody- NRI & Foreigner-Guardianship- Visitation Rights [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Phool Chandra Versus State of Uttar Pradesh, Crl. M.P. No. 25683/2013 Judgment Dated- 10/03/2014, Bench: B.S. Chauhan & J. Chelameswar, JJ, Citations- 2014(4) SCR 97: 2014(13) SCC 112.- Constitution of India- Article 136 -Held: Power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as Constitution') is to be invoked not in a routine manner but in very exceptional circumstances when a question of law of general public importance arises or a decision sought to be impugned before this Court shocks the conscience of the court. This overriding and exceptional power vested in this Court has to be exercised sparingly and only in furtherance of the cause of justice (Para 7)- Of-lately, there has been an increase in the trend of litigants rushing to the courts, including this court, for all kinds of trivial and silly matters which results in wastage of public money and time. A closer scrutiny of all such matters would disclose that there was not even a remote justification for filing the case. It is a pity that the time of the Court which is becoming acutely precious because of the piling arrears has to be wasted on hearing such matters. There is an urgent need to put a check on such frivolous litigation. Perhaps many such cases can be avoided if learned counsel who are officers of the court and who are expected to assist the court tender proper advice to their clients. The Bar has to realise that the great burden upon the Bench of dispensing justice imposes a simultaneous duty upon them to share this burden and it is their duty to see that the burden should not needlessly be made unbearable. The Judges of this Nation are struggling bravely against the odds to tackle the problem of dispensing quick justice. But, without the cooperation of the gentlemen of the Bar, nothing can be done (Para 11)- It is high time that the Courts should come down heavily upon such frivolous litigation and unless we ensure that the wrongdoers are denied profit or undue benefit from the frivolous litigation, it would be difficult to control frivolous and uncalled for litigation. In order to curb such kind of litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive which can be ensured by imposing exemplary costs upon the parties as well as on learned counsel who act in an irresponsible manner (Para 12)- Subedar v. The State of UP, AIR 1971 SC 125; Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Setharathnam & Anr., AIR 1979 SC 1284; Pritam Singh v. The State, AIR 1950 SC 169; The Bharat Bank Ltd., Delhi v. The Employees of Bharat Bank Ltd, Delhi etc., AIR 1950 SC 188; Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, AIR 2010 SC 932 Mathai @ Joby v. George & Anr., (2010) 4 SCC 358; Varinderpal Singh v. Hon'ble Justice M.R. Sharma & Ors., 1986 Supp SCC 719; Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 249; Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Khazani & Anr., AIR 2012 SC 2881; Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi & Anr., AIR 1975 SC 1331 & Kadra Pahadiya & Ors. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1997 SC 3750, Relied on (Para 7, 11, 12 & 14) [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Phonographic Performance Ltd. Vs. Radio Mid Day -West- India Ltd.- RFA No. 440 Of 2009-DelHC- 07.04.2010 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Phulwari Jagdambaprasad Pathak Vs. R.H.Mendonca- SC-26.07.200- 2000 (6) SCC 751- Detention- Preventive Detention- State Government-Advisory Board- Held, “[16] .....Preventive detention measure is harsh, but it becomes necessary in the larger interest of society. It is in the nature of a precautionary measure taken for preservation of public order......” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Piara Singh [State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Piara Singh & Ors.]- Civil Appeal No. 2979 Of 1992- SC-12-08-1992- AIR 1992 SC 2130- Contract Employees- Held, one set of contractual employees cannot be replaced by another set of contractual employees, unless there are valid reasons for doing so i.e. some misconduct is attributable to such contractual employee- The proposition of the Judgment has undergone a sea change after this judgment came- In Gridco Limited & Anr. Vs. Sadananda Doloi & Ors. (2011) 15 SCC 16, the SC held that contractual appointments work only if they are mutually beneficial to both the contracting parties and not otherwise.- In Gridco Limited it was further held that a contractual employee has no vested right to continue with the contractual service after the project in question is no longer operational. [Full PDF Judgment].
    • PK Dash, Advocate & Ors. Versus Bar Council Of Delhi & Ors., W.P. (C) 8106/2010, Judgment Dated: 31.05.2016, Bench: S. Ravindra Bhat & Siddharth Mridul, JJ, Delhi  High Court/ Supreme Court Of India [Full PDF Judgment Dated-31.05.2016]; [Full PDF Judgment Dated-18.10.2016]: Holding that a Writ Petition is maintainable against Bar Councils and Bar Associations, Delhi High Court on directed Bar Associations on 31.05.2016 to incorporate “One Bar, One Vote” and “One person One chamber” Principles in Rules- This Order was however modified subsequently, i.e. on 18.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • PKH Vs. Central Adoption Resource Authority- CARA-DHC-18.07.2016- Writ Petition (Civil) No.5718/2015- Adoption- CARA- HAMA- In this case a Coordinate Bench of DelHC examined in detail the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000, the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, the Guidelines Governing Adoption of Children, 2015, the various International Conventions, the judgments of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey versus Union of India, 1984(2) SCC 244, and Anokha (Smt.) versus State of Rajasthan and Others, (2004) 1 SCC 382 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ponty Chadha Alias Gurdeep Singh Chadha Shootout Case- State Vs. Bhupinder Singh Bisht- Crl.Rev.P. 162 Of 2014- Charge- Discharge [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Pooja Vs. Vijay Chaitanya - A.F.R. Case - First Appeal No. - 227 of 2018 -AllHC-06.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Pooja Bhatia v. Vishnu Narain ShivpuriCriminal Appeal No. 585/2014 Judgment Dated- 10/03/2014, Bench-P. Sathasivam, C.J. & Ranjan Gogoi, J, Citations- 2014(3) SCALE 612: 2014(2) Supreme 465: 2014(3) SLT 304: 2014(2) Crimes 50(SC): 2014(3) JCC 1555: 2014(3) SCR 661: 2014(13) SCC 492- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgments].
    • P P Sharma  [State of Bihar v. P.P. Sharma]- Criminal Appeal Nos. 527 Of 1990- SC-02.04.1991- AIR 1991 SC 1260- Quashing- Chargesheet- Issue, whether an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet should be entertained before cognizance is taken by a criminal court; Held, "Quashing the charge-sheet even before cognizance is taken by a criminal Court amounts to killing a still born child. Till the criminal Court takes cognizance of the offence there is no criminal proceedings pending. I am not allowing the appeals on the ground alternative remedies provided by the Code as a bar” [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Prabhat Kumar Mishra Vs  South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.- Appointment & Employment In Accordance With The Rehabilitation Policy-In Lieu Of Acquisition Of His Land [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Prabhat Kumar Sharma & Anr. Vs. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi & Anr- FAO-OS-200 Of 2017- DelHC-24.01.2018- Encroachments- Unauthorized construction- Public way/ Right of way/easement- W-12D Link Road [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Pradip Burman Vs. Income Tax Office- Crl.M.C. 2467 Of 2015- Delhc- 02.12.2015- Bench- Suresh Kait, Delhi High Court- Quashing Of IT Complaint [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Pradeep Kumar [Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration Vs. Pradeep Kumar]- CIVIL APPEAL NO. 67 OF 2018-SC-08.01.2018- Police Force- Selection Process- Consideration of Antecedents of the candidates- What is honorable acquittal [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Pradeep Kumar Sharma (Dr.) Vs. Ratna Sharma- CM(M) 50/2007- DHC-03.07.2009- S-125 CrPC- DV Act- Test of the order granting maintenance Justified or unjustified- [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi- Appeal- Crl.- 324  Of  2001-SC-23.03.2001- AIR 2001 SC 1444 at p. 1446 = 2001 Cri LJ 1730= (2001)4 SCC 280= 2001 SCC (Cri) 674 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs. The State Of Maharashtra- Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos.10280-10281 Of 2017- SC-10.01.2018- Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-10-2017 in CRA No. 296 of 2017- 10.10.2017 in CRLWP No. 3791 Of 2016 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay- Maintenance- CrPC- DV Act, Payment liable either under one of them or both the Act. 
    • Prakash Chand [State of Rajasthan vs. Prakash Chand]- 3JBSC-25.11.1997- (1998) 1 SCC 1- Issue, Constitution of bench by chief justice- Reference to a larger bench- Held, the Chief Justice of the High Court is the master of the roster [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Prakash Jha Productions Vs. Union Of India- Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 345 OF 2011- SC-19.08.2011- Ban on Screening of film- Ban on film- ultra vires the Art.-19(1) of Constitution of India [Full PDF Judgment
    • Prithipal Singh Versus Avtar Singh Walia, Cm(M) 131/2015, Date Of Decision: 26th November,2015, Bench: Pratibha Rani, J. Delhi High Court: Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India- Seeking to have set aside the order whereby the learned ADJ dismissed the applications filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order IX Rule 4 CPC for restoration of the suit which has been dismissed in default by the learned Trial Court as well as application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay- Petition succeeds [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Pritish Natvar Sanghvi Vs. Natvar Keshavlal Sanghvi And Anr. - Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Writ Petition No. 11735 Of 2017 - BomHC- 04.06.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Pramati Educational & Cultural Trust ® & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors., Writ Petition (C) No. 416 OF 2012, Judgment Dated: 06.05.2014, Bench: R.M. Lodha & A. K. Patnaik & Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya & Dipak Misra & Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, JJ, Supreme Court Of India: Two substantial questions of law: (i)  Whether by inserting clause (5) in Article 15 of the Constitution by the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act, 2005, Parliament has altered the basic structure or framework of the Constitution. (ii)  Whether by inserting Article 21A of the Constitution by the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, Parliament has altered the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.- Other statute involved: Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short ‘the 2009 Act’). Related Case: Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India & Anr. [(2012) 6 SCC 1; Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru v. State of Kerala & Anr. (1973) 4 SCC 225- Held, "47. In the result, we hold that the Constitution (Ninety- third Amendment) Act, 2005 inserting clause (5) of Article 15 of the Constitution and the Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002 inserting Article 21A of the Constitution do not alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution and are constitutionally valid. We also hold that the 2009 Act is not ultra vires Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution. We, however, hold that the 2009 Act insofar as it applies to minority schools, aided or unaided, covered under clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution is ultra vires the Constitution. Accordingly, Writ Petition (C) No.1081 of 2013 filed on behalf of Muslim Minority Schools Managers’ Association is allowed....." [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Prashant Bharti vs. State of NCT of Delhi- Criminal Appeal No. 175 Of 2013 -SC-23.01.2013- 2013(1) Crimes 195(SC) [Against] [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Prateek Gupta Vs Shilpi Gupta- SC- 06.12.2017-Criminal Appeal No. 968 OF 2017- Child Custody- NRI- Guardian and Wards Act, 1890- Section 7(b)- Father entrusted with the custody [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Praveen Mehta Vs. Inderjit Mehta- Appeal (Civil) 3930 Of  2002 - SC - 11.07.2002- AIR 2002 SC 2582- Held, “21. Cruelty for the purpose of Section 13(1)(ia) is to be taken as a behavior by one spouse towards the other which causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him or her to continue the matrimonial relationship with the other. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behavior or behavioral pattern by the other. Unlike the case of physical cruelty the mental cruelty is difficult to establish by direct evidence. It is necessarily a matter of inference to be drawn from the facts and circumstances of the case. A feeling of anguish, disappointment and frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of the other can only be appreciated on assessing the attending facts and circumstances in which the two partners of matrimonial life have been living. The inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively. In case of mental cruelty it will not be a correct approach to take an instance of misbehavior in isolation and then pose the question whether such behavior is sufficient by itself to cause mental cruelty. The approach should be to take the cumulative effect of the facts and circumstances emerging from the evidence on record and then draw a fair inference whether the petitioner in the divorce petition has been subjected to mental cruelty due to conduct of the other.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Praveen Saini Vs. Reetu Kapur- RFA No. 21/2018- DelHC-08.01.2018- Cost & Penalties- Cost of Rs.10,00,000/- S-209 IPC- S-96 CPC- S-200 CrPC- Dishonest litigants-Scandalizing of the Court proceedings- Decree U/O- XII, R-6 CPC by referring to the admissions made by the Appellant/Defendant in earlier judicial proceeding- Law & Case law referred- Punjab High Court Rules and Orders (as applicable to Delhi)- Chapter VI Part I Rule 15 & Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi- (2011) 8 SCC 249- [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Pravin Vijaykumar Taware Vs. The Special Executive Magistrate, Baramati, Pune-SC- 18.06.2009-Criminal Writ Petition No.   2682   Of 2008- Chapter-VIII CrPC- S-107, 108, 109, 111, 151 CrPC- Misuse of powers by SEMs [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand-SC-13.08.2010- Criminal Appeal No. 1512 OF 2010- (2010) 7 SCC 667- Rampant misuse of S-498A IPC- Quashing of Proceedings- Quashing of FIR-Inherent power-IPC-S-498A, 406, 341, 323- Observed as follows: “28. It is a matter of common knowledge that unfortunately matrimonial litigation is rapidly increasing in our country. All the courts in our country including this court are flooded with matrimonial cases. This clearly demonstrates discontent and unrest in the family life of a large number of people of the society. 29. The courts are receiving a large number of cases emanating from section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code….”. Further observed- “30. It is a matter of common experience that most of these complaints under section 498-A IPC are filed in the heat of the moment over trivial issues without proper deliberations. We come across a large number of such complaints which are not even bona fide and are filed with oblique motive. At the same time, rapid increase in the number of genuine cases of dowry harassment are also a matter of serious concern. 31. The learned members of the Bar have enormous social responsibility and obligation to ensure that the social fiber of family life is not ruined or demolished. They must ensure that exaggerated versions of small incidents should not be reflected in the criminal complaints. Majority of the complaints are filed either on their advice or with their concurrence. The learned members of the Bar who belong to a noble profession must maintain its noble traditions and should treat every complaint under section 498-A as a basic human problem and must make serious endeavor to help the parties in arriving at an amicable resolution of that human problem. They must discharge their duties to the best of their abilities to ensure that social fiber, peace and tranquility of the society remains intact. The members of the Bar should also ensure that one complaint should not lead to multiple cases. 32. Unfortunately, at the time of filing of the complaint the implications and consequences are not properly visualized by the complainant that such complaint can lead to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the complainant, accused and his close relations. 33. The ultimate object of justice is to find out the truth and punish the guilty and protect the innocent. To find out the truth is a herculean task in majority of these complaints. The tendency of implicating husband and all his immediate relations is also not uncommon. At times, even after the conclusion of criminal trial, it is difficult to ascertain the real truth. The courts have to be extremely careful and cautious in dealing with these complaints and must take pragmatic realities into consideration while dealing with matrimonial cases. The allegations of harassment of husband’s close relations who had been living in different cities and never visited or rarely visited the place where the complainant resided would have an entirely different complexion. The allegations of the complaint are required to be scrutinized with great care and circumspection. Experience reveals that long and protracted criminal trials lead to rancour, acrimony and bitterness in the relationship amongst the parties. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in cases filed by the complainant if the husband or the husband’s relations had to remain in jail even for a few days, it would ruin the chances of amicable settlement altogether. The process of suffering is extremely long and painful. 34. Before parting with this case, we would like to observe that a serious relook of the entire provision is warranted by the legislation. It is also a matter of common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases. 35. The criminal trials lead to immense sufferings for all concerned. Even ultimate acquittal in the trial may also not be able to wipe out the deep scars of suffering of ignominy. Unfortunately a large number of these complaints have not only flooded the courts but also have led to enormous social unrest affecting peace, harmony and happiness of the society. It is high time that the legislature must take into consideration the pragmatic realities and make suitable changes in the existing law. It is imperative for the legislature to take into consideration the informed public opinion and the pragmatic realities in consideration and make necessary changes in the relevant provisions of law. We direct the Registry to send a copy of this judgment to the Law Commission and to the Union Law Secretary, Government of India who may place it before the Hon’ble Minister for Law & Justice to take appropriate steps in the larger interest of the society.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Preeti Satija vs. Smt. Raj Kumari and another- DBDelHC-15.02.2014- RFA (OS) 24/2012 -2014(1) RCR (Criminal) 1035, Delhi (DB)- DV Act- Shared Household (S-2(s)-Domestic Relation (S-2(f)-Aggrieved Person (S-2(a)- Respondent(S-2(q) [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Prithvi Cotton Mills Limited, Shri Vs. Broach Borough Municipality- Civil Appeals. Nos. 2197 And 2198 Of 1966 -SC-25.04.1969 (1969) 2 SCC 283- Decision of Courts is binding on the executive [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Priya Parameswaran Pillai Versus Union Of India And Ors., WP(C) 774/2015, Judgement Dated: 12.03.2015, Delhi High Court - Quashing Of Look Out Circular [LOC]  by IB.
    • Public Interest Foundation Vs. UOI- Election Law- Electoral Reforms-Disqualification Of Convicted Legislators- W.P. (Civil) No. 536 Of 2011 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Puneet Kaur Vs. Inderjit Singh Sawhney- CM(M) 79 of 2011-DelHC-12.09.2011- Matrimonial- Maintenance- What factors to be taken to be account [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Pune Municipal Corporation Vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki- 3JBSC-24.01.2014-Civil Appeal No. 877 OF 2014- (2014) 3 SCC 183- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013- Section 24- Compensation Not paid- Validity of  Land Acquisition-Whether Acquisition lapsed?- Or higher interest U/S-Section 34 of the 1894 Act entails? [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chd. Vs. State of Punjab- 1994(1) SCC 616- Mere filing of charge-sheet would not preclude the power of the High Court to hand-over investigation to an independent agency [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Purohit- [Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit  Vs. State of Maharashtra]- Criminal Appeal No. 1448 Of 2017-SC-21.08.2017-Bail-CrPC-439-Material Factors- Observed, "It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider, among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge."- Further observed: "23) At the stage of granting bail, a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case has not to be undertaken. The grant or refusal to grant bail lies within the discretion of the court. The grant or denial is regulated, to a large extent, by the facts and circumstances of each particular case. But at the same time, right to bail is not to be denied merely because of the sentiments of the community against the accused.".  [Full PDF Judgment
    • Puttaswamy,J [Justice K S Puttaswamy Vs, Union Of India-SC (9JB)-24.08.2017- Writ Petition (Civil) No 494 OF 2012- Right to privacy [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Putul Rabidas Vs. Eastern Coalfields Ltd. & Ors.- F.M.A. 4401 Of 2016-CalHC-13.09.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • P. Veera Bhaarathi Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu, Principal Secretary, Home [Prison] Department- H.C.P.(MD).No.540 of 2016- MadHC- 26.10.2016 [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