• Judgments-R

  • 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

    • Rabia A. Khan Vs State of Maharashtra- Criminal Writ Petition No.669 OF 2016- BomHC- 09.02.2017- SIT Investigation beisdes the Police-Jiah Khan [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Rudul Shah vs. State of Bihar & Anr.; AIR 1983 SC 1086- Constitution of India- Articles 32 & 226- Compensation in case of Custodial Death- Cases referred: Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa & Ors.; AIR 1993 SC 1960; and Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors.; AIR 2006 SC 1117 [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Raghav Chadha Vs. State- DelHC- 25.09.2017- CRL. M. C. NO. 2570 Of 2017-O-6, R-16, CPC- Quashing- Summoning Orders-Twitter, Tweet and Retweet- Defamation- IT Act-S-66A- IPC- S-499, 500  [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Raghunath Das v. Union of India- Civil Appeal No. 1005 of 1965- SC-26.07.1968- AIR 1969 SC 674- CPC- S-80- The object of the notice contemplated by S-80 is to give to the concerned Governments and  public officers opportunity  to      reconsider the legal position and to make amends or settle the claim, if so advised without litigation- The provisions in S-80 Civil Procedure Code are not intended to be used  as  boobytraps  against  ignorant  and  illiterate persons- The purpose of law is advancement of justice [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Rahul Gandhi  Versus. Dr. Subramanian Swamy, Crl.M.C. 3332/2014, Judgment Dated-07.12.2015, Sunil Gaur, J, Delhi High Court- Quashing of summoning Order issued against Smt. Sonia Gandhi & Mr. Rahul Gandhi declined [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Rahul Mehra Vs. UOI, SC-31.10.2017-WP-C- No. 195 of 2010, Election of the Office Bearers set-aside [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Raja And Others Vs. State Of Karnataka  - Criminal Appeal No. 1767 Of 2011 - SC - 04.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur Vs. The State Of Punjab-4JBSC- 12.04.1955-AIR 1955 SC 549= 1955 2 SCR 225- Constitutional Laws- Constitution of India- Art-73 & 162-Executive powers under Art-73 and 162 of  the Constitution [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Rajasthan Breweries Ltd. Vs The Stroh Brewery Company (AIR 2000 Delhi 450) - Corporate, Business & Commercial Law- Commercial Contracts- Determinable Clauses- Termination Clause- Principle of “just, fair and devoid of arbitrariness” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Rajasthan Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Versus Ajay Kumar Katewa & Ors., Special Appeal (Writ) No.529/2015, Bench: Ajit Singh, ACJ, & Anupinder Singh, J, Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench- Held, “...existence of an alternate remedy is not an absolute bar for the exercise of writ jurisdiction.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Rajat Gupta Vs Rupali Gupta- CONT.CAS(C) 772 Of 2013-DBDHC- 15.05.2018- Matrimonial Laws- Mutual Consent Divorce- Amicable Settlement- Court Cannot Compel the parties to go for mutual consent divorce- Following questions of law were formulated in this case- ―(A) Whether a party, which has under a settlement agreement decreed by a Court undertaken to file a petition under Section 13B(1) or a motion under Section 13B(2) of the Act, 1955 or both and has also undertaken to appear before the said Court for obtaining divorce ―can be held liable for contempt‖, if the said party fails to file or appear in the petition or motion or both to obtain divorce in view of the option to reconsider/renege the decision of taking divorce by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Act?- (B) Whether by undertaking before a Court to file a second motion under Section 13B(2) of the Act, 1955 at Section 13B(1) stage or by giving an undertaking to a Court to that effect in a separate court proceeding, a party waives its right to rethink/renege under 13B(2) of the Act, 1955? If yes, whether such right can be waived by a party under Section 13B(2) of the Act, 1955?- (C) Whether any guidelines are required to be followed by the Court while recording the undertaking/agreement of the parties with respect to a petition under Section 13B(1) or a motion under Section 13B(2) of the Act, 1955 or both for obtaining divorce?- (D) Whether the judgment in Avneesh Sood (supra) and Shikha Bhatia (supra) are good law in view of the doubts expressed by this Court in paras 19 to 28 and in view of the Division Bench judgment in Dinesh Gulati (supra).‖ [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Rajdeep Sardesai Vs. State Of Andhra Pradesh & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.857 Of 2012, Judgment Dated: May 14, 2015, Bench- V. Gopala Gowda & C. Nagappan, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973- Section-482- Quashing- Summoning Order, passed by Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge in a defamation Case U/S- 499 & 500 IPC.- Bunch of Petitions decided by same Order, Disallowing the same with the following finding-  “there is no substantial question of law framed in the appeals nor is there any miscarriage of justice for the appellants to interfere with at this stage. In our considered view, having regard to the nature of the complaint, the respondents are required to prove the allegations against the appellants by adducing valid and cogent evidence, the same has to be considered by the trial court and accordingly record the findings on the merits of the case.” [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P- Criminal Appeal No. 1265 OF 2017- SC-27.07.2017-498A- Guidelines Qua Welfare Committee- Family Members Personal Appearance- In this case, referring to Sushil Kumar Sharma versus Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 281, Preeti Gupta versus State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667, Ramgopal versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 13 SCC 540, Chander Bhan versus State5 in Bail Application No.1627/2008, Delhi High Court, (2008) 151 DLT 691, Lalita Kumari versus Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1, it was submitted that misuse of the provision is judicially acknowledged. Honble Supreme Court Of India, therefore, issued the following directions to prevent such misuse: (a) In every district one or more Family Welfare Committees be constituted by the District Legal Services Authorities preferably comprising of three members. The constitution and working of such committees may be reviewed from time to time and at least once in a year by the District and Sessions Judge of the district who is also the Chairman of the District Legal Services Authority; (b) The Committees may be constituted out of para legal volunteers/social workers/retired persons/wives of working officers/other citizens who may be found suitable and willing; (c) The Committee members will not be called as witnesses; (d) Every complaint under Section 498A received by the police or the Magistrate be referred to and looked into by such committee. Such committee may have interaction with the parties personally or by means of telephone or any other mode of communication including electronic communication; (e) Report of such committee be given to the Authority by whom the complaint is referred to it latest within one month from the date of receipt of complaint; (f) The committee may give its brief report about the factual aspects and its opinion in the matter. (g) Till report of the committee is received, no arrest should normally be effected; (h) The report may be then considered by the Investigating Officer or the Magistrate on its own merit; …..(iv) If a bail application is filed with at least one clear day’s notice to the Public Prosecutor/complainant, the same may be decided as far as possible on the same day. Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected. Needless to say that in dealing with bail matters, individual roles, prima facie truth of the allegations, requirement of further arrest/ custody and interest of justice must be carefully weighed; (v) In respect of persons ordinarily residing out of India impounding of passports or issuance of Red Corner Notice should not be a routine; (vi) It will be open to the District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer nominated by the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes so that a holistic view is taken by the Court to whom all such cases are entrusted; and (vii) Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and the trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of the trial. (viii) These directions will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death[Full PDF Judgments].
    • Rajiv Gandhi Assassination Case [T. Suthenthiraraja,P. Ravichandran,Robert Payas, S Nalini Vs. State By D.S.P., CBI, SIT, Chennai]- SC-11.05.1999 [Full PDF Judgments]
    • Rajinder Kumar v. State of Haryana, Criminal Appeal No. 799 of 2011, Judgment Dated-14.01.2015, Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.: N.V. Ramana, J., Citation: 2015(4) SCC 215: 2015(1) SCALE 354: 2015(1) SLT 525: 2015 CrLJ 1560: 2015(1) Crimes 267(SC): 2015(2) JCC 1049: 2015(3) Supreme 12- Penal Code, 1860- Section 304-B- Conviction for dowry death- Death under other than normal circumstance, harassment soon before death, justified- Trial Court convicted appellant/husband of deceased u/s 498A and 304B IPC and acquitted other accused (mother and his sister)- On appeal, High Court set aside conviction and sentence of appellant u/s 498A IPC while upholding conviction and sentence u/s 304B- Appeal- Held, death of deceased (wife) occurred within seven years of her marriage- Not disputed that her death not under normal circumstances- Statements of complainant (PW-7/elder sister of deceased) and PW-13/brother were specific about harassment of deceased by accused in connection with demand of dowry- It is also evident from evidence on record that she was meted out with such harassment soon before her death- Prosecution was successful in proving ingredients of Section 304-B IPC- Trial Court rightly presumed that accused had caused dowry death of victim and High Court rightly upheld conviction and sentence- Appeal dismissed (Para 8, 12, 13 & 14)- HELD: Hari Chand (PW-13) has corroborated the statement made by the complainant (PW-7). No inconsistency is found in their statements. Defence also could not make out anything to disprove the same during their cross-examinations. From the statements of the complainant (PW-7) and Hari Chand (PW-13), we find that the deceased-Raj Rani had been harassed on account of demand of dowry soon before her death (Para 8) [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Rajive Raturi Vs. Union Of India And Others - Writ Petition - Civil - No. 243 Of 2005 - SC - 15.12.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Rajiv Thapar v Madan Lal Kapoor- Criminal Appeal No.174 Of 2013-Sc-23.01.2013- 2013 (3) SCC 330- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC.- Held, " Based on the factors canvassed in the foregoing paragraphs, we would delineate the following steps to determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: i. Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the material is of sterling and impeccable quality?; ii. Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.; iii. Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?; iv. Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?"- “ [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Raj Kumar [State Of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar]- Criminal Appeal No. 31 OF 2018-SC-08.01.2018-Criminal Law- circumstantial evidence- Held, “10. In a case, based on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be drawn only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused.”. [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Raj Kumar Vs State Of MP- Criminal Appeal Nos. 1419-1420 Of 2013-SC-25.02-2014- 1014-III AD (SC) 257- S-106 Of The Evidence Act- Family Court’s Original Side Jurisdiction- POSCO- Ocular Evidence, Medical Evidence, Forensic Evidence, Documentary Evidence, Police Investigation- Age Determination [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Raj Kumar Bhatia  Vs. Subhash Chander Bhatia- Civil Appeal No.-19400 Of 2017-3JBSC- 15.12.2017-Pleading- Amendment- CPC- O-VI, R-17- Observed: “Whether an amendment should be allowed is not dependent on whether the case which is proposed to be set up will eventually succeed at the trial. In enquiring into merits, the High Court transgressed the limitations on its jurisdiction under Article 227. [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Raj Kumar Goel Vs. Directorate Of Enforcement - Bail Appln. 350 Of 2018 - DelhC-10.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Raj Narain- State of UP vs Raj Narain]-Indian Evidence Act-Ss. 123 & 162-Scope of- 1975-AIR-865-1975-1975-SCC-4-428 [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Raj Talreja  Vs. Kavita Talreja-SC-24.04.2017- Civil Appeal No. 10719 OF 2013- Cruelty-S-13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Rakesh Vs. State Of U.P.- JAIL APPEAL No. - 242 of 2013-AllHC-18.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Rakesh Baban Borhade Vs. State of Maharashtrahtra, Crl. Appeal Nos. 2446-2447/2014, Judgment Dated-19/11/2014, Bench-V. Gopala Gowda & R. Banumathi, JJ, Citations- 2015(2) SCC 313: 2014(13) JT 131: 2014(13) SCALE 93: 2014(8) Supreme 65: 2014(10) SLT 129: 2014(4) Crimes 269(SC)- Cancellation Of Bail [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Rakesh Kumar Paul Vs State Of Assam- Special Leave To Appeal - Crl. - No. 2009 Of  2017- SC-16.08.2017- Default Bail [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ramakant Dwivedi Versus Rafiq Ahmad & Ors.- Civil Appeal No.4 Of 2016- SC-04.01.2016- Civil Appeal No.4 Of 2016- Mineral Law- Issue Of Grant Of Lease For Excavation Of Minor Minerals [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ramanand Yadav vs. Prabhu Nath Jha And Ors., (2003) 12 SCC 606- Reviewing/ reappreciation of   the   evidence-  presumption of innocence of the accused- when two views are possible- miscarriage of justice- admissible evidence “21. There is no embargo on the appellate   court reviewing   the   evidence   upon   which   an   order   of acquittal is based.  Generally, the order of acquittal shall not be interfered with because the presumption of innocence of the accused is further strengthened by acquittal. The golden thread which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and   the   other   to   his innocence, the   view   which   is favourable   to   the   accused   should   be   adopted.   The paramount consideration of the court is to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented. A miscarriage of justice which may arise from acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. In a case where admissible evidence is ignored, a duty is cast   upon   the   appellate   court   to   reappreciate   the evidence   in   a   case where the accused has been acquitted, for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether any of the accused committed any offence or not [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Rama Shanker & Others Vs. State of U.P-Criminal Appeal No. - 421 of 1992-AllHC- 24.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ramdev Food Products Private Limited Versus State Of Gujarat, Criminal Appeal No.600 Of 2007, Judgment Dated: 16.12.2015, T.S. Thakur, Adarsh Kumar Goel & R. Banumathi, JJ,  Delhi March 16, 2015, JJ, Supreme Court Of India [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Ramesh Gajanan Nigudkar Vs. The Bank Of Baroda - Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Writ Petition No.11359 Of 2013 - BomHC- 18.08.2016 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Ramesh Sharma Vs  Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB Kolkata- C.R.R. 2160 of 2014- CalHC- 06.09.2016- Charges-Absence Of Framming Of Charge [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Rameshwar Prasad Versus Union of India, (2006) 2 SCC 1: Held that Governors cannot be asked to join legal proceedings [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Rameshwari Photocopy Services [The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars Of The University Of Oxford & Ors. Vs.. Rameshwari Photocopy Services]- Cs-Os- 2439 Of 2012 - Delhc-16.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ramgopal versus State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 13 SCC 540- Section 498-A- rampant misuse [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Ram Krishan Bhardwaj (Dr.) Vs. The State of Delhi- SC-16.04.1953- 1953 AIR 318- 1953 SCR 708- Preventive Detention Act, 1952- Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 21,22(5)- Writ Petition in the nature of habeas corpus- Detenu’s right to be supplied with full particulars- Vague ground- Right to be released- Vagueness of one of several grounds- Effect of- Preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and meagre safeguards that the Constitution provides against improper exercise of the power, must be jealously watched and enforced by the Court[Full PDF Judgment].  
    • Ramlila Maidan Incident DT.4/5.06.2011 [Suo Moto- Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt.4/5.06.2011 Versus Home Secretary, Union of India]- Suo Motu Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 122/2011, Judgment Dated- 23/02/2012, Bench: Swatanter Kumar & B.S. Chauhan, J., Supreme Court Of India, Citation- 2012(4) SCR 971: 2012(5) SCC 1: 2012(3) JT 1: 2012(2) SCALE 682: 2012(2) Supreme 36: 2012(2) SLT 229: 2012 CrLJ 3516: 2012(2) SCC(Cr) 241: 2012(1) Crimes 241(SC)- Fundamental rights- Constitution of India- Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) & 21- CrPC- S-144- Right to expression- Ramlila Maidan incident- Police action on sleeping crowd, justification- Prohibitory orders were passed is haste and executed with force- Forcible eviction of innocent public sleeping in the Maidan at midnight suffers from arbitrariness and abuse of power- Directions issued.- HELD: While directing the State Government and the Commissioner of Police to register and investigate cases of criminal acts and offences, destruction of private and public property against the police officers/personnel along with those members of the assembly, who threw bricks at the police force causing injuries to the members of the force as well as damage to the property, I issue the following directions:- a. Take disciplinary action against all the erring police officers/personnel who have indulged in brick-batting, have resorted to lathi charge and excessive use of tear gas shells upon the crowd, have exceeded their authority or have acted in a manner not permissible under the prescribed procedures, rules or the standing orders and their actions have an element of criminality. This action shall be taken against the officer/personnel irrespective of what ranks they hold in the hierarchy of police. b. The police personnel who were present in the pandal and still did not help the evacuation of the large gathering and in transportation of sick and injured people to the hospitals have, in my opinion, also rendered themselves liable for appropriate disciplinary action.  The police shall also register criminal cases against the police personnel and members of the gathering at the Ramlila ground (whether they were followers of Baba Ramdev or otherwise) who indulged in damage to the property, brick-batting etc. All these cases have already been reported to the Police Station Kamla Market. The police shall complete the investigation and file a report under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. within three months from today. I also direct that the persons who died or were injured in this unfortunate incident should be awarded ad hoc compensation. Smt. Rajbala, who got spinal injury in the incident and subsequently died, would be entitled to the ad-hoc compensation of Rs.5 lacs while persons who suffered grievous injuries and were admitted to the hospital would be entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/-each and persons who suffered simple injuries and were taken to the hospital but discharged after a short while would be entitled to a compensation of Rs.25,000/-each.- For breach of the legal and moral duty and for its contributory negligence, the consequences of financial liability would also pass, though to a limited extent, upon the respondent no.4Trust as well. Thus, I direct that in cases of death and grievous hurt, 25% of the awarded compensation shall be paid by the Trust. The said amount shall be paid to the Commissioner of Police, who in turn, shall issue a cheque for the entire amount in favour of the injured or the person claiming for the deceased. The compensation awarded by this Court shall be treated as ad-hoc compensation and in the event, the deceased or the injured persons or the persons claiming through them institute any legal proceedings for that purpose, the compensation awarded in this judgment shall be adjusted in those proceedings [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar- (AIR 1966 SC 740)- Constitution- Rights under Art.-19(1)(a)- Restrictions U/Art.-19(2)- Disturbance of law and order no ground [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Ram Narayan Singh Vs. The State of Delhi- AIR 1953 SC 277- Detenu- detainee- Arrestee-Confinee- Police Custody [PC]- Judicial Custody [JC]- S-167(2) CrPC- Art-21 of the Constitution- Detention beyond 60 days [Full PDF Judgment] 
    • Ramo Devi Vs. State- 2016(3) JCC 1579- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA)- Held, S-306 IPC is not a minor offence nor S-304B IPC and the ingredients of the two offences being different, in the absence of a charge under S-306 IPC, the Appellant could not be convicted under the said offence [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Ram Phal Versus State & Ors., Crl.A.1415/2012, Judgment Dated: 28.05.2015, S. Ravindra Bhat, Pradeep Nandrajog, Gita Mittal, JJ., Delhi High Court- Maintainability of Appeal by the "Victim" U/S-S-372 Of Cr.P.C.- Judgment, Namely, Chattar Singh V. Subhash And Ors., 176 (2011) DLT 356 Overruled- Criminal Appeals [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Ramrameshwari Devi Vs. Nirmala Devi- Civil Appeal Nos.  4912 Of 2011-SC-04.07.2011- 2011 8 SCC 249- Warning- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2-Ex Parte Injunction- Mechanical Grant Of Injunction- Cost of Litigation- Provided that only realistic cost of litigation should be awarded [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Ram Singh- State Of Madhya Pradesh Vs Shri Ram Singh- SC-01.02.2000- Special Leave Petition- (Crl.- 1295  of  1997- Special Leave Petition- (Crl.)      1603  of  1997- Corruption- Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988- (2000) 5 SCC 88 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Ramsiya Yadav-Gratuity Vs State of UP- WRIT-A No.- 36165 of 2014-AllHC-06.09.2016-Withholding- Justifiability  [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Ram Sukhi Devi [State Of U.P. And Ors. V. Ram Sukhi Devi]- ______- (2005) 9 SCC 733- O-39, R-1 & 2- O-XXXIX, R-1 & 2-Ex Parte Injunction- Final Relief And Interim Relief [Full PDF Judgments]
    • R. and M Trust Vs. Koramangla Residents Vigilance Group­ AIR 2005 SC 894- PIL- doctrine of Delay and laches [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Rangappa vs. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441- Presumption of legally enforceable debt & liability U/S-139 of the NI Act & Right to rebuttal [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Ranjitsing   Brahmajeetsing   Sharma   Vs.   State   of Maharashtra- (2005) 5 SCC 294- - Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999- Held, “44.  The wording of Section 21(4), in our opinion, does not lead to the conclusion that the Court must arrive at a positive finding that  the applicant for bail has not committed an offence under the Act. If such a construction is placed, the court intending to grant bail must arrive at a finding that the applicant has not committed such an offence. In such an event, it will be impossible for the prosecution to obtain a judgment of conviction of the applicant. Such cannot be the intention of the Legislature. Section 21(4) of MCOCA, therefore, must   be construed reasonably.   It   must   be   so construed that the Court is able to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. Similarly, the Court   will   be   required   to   record   a   finding   as   to   the possibility   of   his   committing   a   crime   after   grant of bail. However, such an offence in futuro must be an offence under the Act and not any other offence. Since it is difficult to predict the future conduct of an accused, the court must necessarily consider   this   aspect   of   the   matter   having   regard   to   the antecedents of the accused, his propensities and the nature and manner in which he is alleged to have committed the offence. 45. It   is,   furthermore,   trite   that   for   the   purpose   of considering an application for grant of bail, although detailed reasons are not necessary to be assigned, the order granting bail must demonstrate application of mind at least in serious cases as to why the applicant has been granted or denied the privilege of bail. 46. The duty of the court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. However, while  dealing with a special statute like MCOCA having regard to the provisions contained in Sub­section (4) of Section 21 of the Act, the Court may have to probe into the matter deeper so as to enable it to arrive at a finding that   the   materials   collected   against   the   accused during   the   investigation   may   not   justify   a   judgment   of conviction. The findings recorded by the Court while granting or refusing bail undoubtedly would be tentative in nature, which may not have any bearing on the merit of the case and the trial court would, thus, be free to decide the case on the basis of evidence adduced at the trial, without in any manner being prejudiced thereby.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ranjit Hazarika Vs. State of Assam- ( 1998) 8 SCC 635- Ulterior motive- Discrepancies not amounting to contradiction [Full PDF Judgments]. 
    • Ranju Gopal Mukherjee & Anr. Vs. State of West Bengal & Ors.- WP 441-W- of 2018-CalHC- 25.01.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P.-SC-11.12.2017- Civil Appeal No. 367 OF 2017-Education-College-School-Revaluation- Re-scrutiny of Answer-sheet-  “30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate – it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ratansinh Dalsukhbhai Nayak Vs. State of Gujarat (AIR 2004 SC 23)- 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].
    • Rattan Lal (since deceased) v. S.N. Bhalla and Anr. (AIR 2012 SC 3094)- Corporate, Business & Commercial Law- Commercial Contracts- Determinable Clauses- Termination Clause- Principle of “just, fair and devoid of arbitrariness” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Rauavarapu Punnayya [State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Rauavarapu Punnayya & Another]- 1977 1 SCR 601- S-498A- S-304B IPC- S-306 IPC-S- Exception IV to S-300 IPC- 113B- Indian Evidence Act (IEA) [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ravinder Vs. Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors.- DelHC-W.P.(Crl.) 3317/2017-25.11.2017-Detentee/Detention- Confinee/Confinement- Arrestee/Arrest- CInstitute of Human Behaviour and Allied Sciences (IHBAS)- Mental Health Act, 1987 (MHA)- Mental Healthcare Act, 2017(Is to replace the MHA and is yet to be made operational) [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ravinder Kumar Versus. Tihar Jail, New Delhi, CIC/SA/A/2015/001408, Judgment Dated: 15.01.2016 [Adjunct Order to decision dated: 21.1.2016], Bench: Prof. M. Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), IC - Held, “6. The Commission finds that there is a significant public interest behind the RTI application as accused should be allowed every opportunity to prove his innocence as per the cardinal principles of criminal justice. He believes that the medical records would help him to prove that with visual deficiency he could not have killed his wife as alleged, but that opportunity was denied by not certifying the medial records at first instance, destroying the records at second instance and finally denying him permission to attend the second appeal.”- “8. Because of the reasons explained above the Commission considers the Supdt, Central Jail-2 as deemed PIO and direct him to show cause why penalty should not be imposed upon him for obstructing the appellant from securing his Right to information by denying permission to attend second appeal before CIC, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order.   8.       Another   issue   brought   before the Commission was destruction of record after RTI application was filed. Appellant presented documents which showed that the DCP, North District, Civil Lines has destroyed medical record of the appellant vide order dated 17-­2­-2015, 14 days after the receipt of the RTI application on 3­-2-­2015. Destruction of records during pendency of RTI application would attract penalty under Section 20.- “11. The Commission directs the Superintendent, Central Jail­2 to initiate the efforts to find the medical records of the appellant if at all left out of the destruction process in the medical record room. In the alternative, the Commission requires the DCP/Civil Lines to search forany parallel entries of medical records or the bills for medical reimbursement or vouchers for payment made to the appellant or any other related document pertaining to medical history of the appellant, within 21 days from the date of receipt of this order. 12. The Commission directs the DGP (Prisons) to show cause why suitable compensation should not be awarded to the appellant for delaying, denying and destroying the medical records by the Public Authority.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ravindra Ramchandra Waghmare Vs. Indore Municipal Corporation & Ors. - Civil Appeal No. 11307 Of 2016- SC- 29.11.2016- 2017-1-SCC-667 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • R. D. Upadhyay V. State Of Andhra Pradesh- Writ Petition (Civil)  559 Of 1994 - SC-13.04.2006- (1996) 3 SCC 8422- Prolonged Incarnation-Right To Bail [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Rev. Stainislaus Vs. Madhya Pradesh, SC-17.01.1977-_____- AIR 1977 SC 908=1977 SCC  (1) 677- Rules For Conversion Of Religion Be Framed [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Rehana Sultana Begum Versus Hashmi Syed Mujib- Criminal Writ Petition No. 544 OF 2003- BomHC- 11.08.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association [Union of India Vs. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association]- Civil Appeal No. 3067 Of 2004 Judgment Dated- 11.05.2010, Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.: R.V. Raveendran, J.: D.K. Jain, J.: P. Sathasivam, J.: J.M. Panchal, J., Citation- 2010(6) SCR 857: 2010(11) SCC 1: 2010(5) JT 553: 2010(5) SCALE 514: 2010(4) Supreme 193: 2010(4) SLT 211: 2010(156) CompCas 392: 2010(261) ELT 3- Quashing- Constitutional validity of Chapters 1B and 1C of the Companies Act, 1956 inserted by Companies (Second Amendment) Act 2002 providing for the constitution of National Company Law Tribunal  and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal- Following issues raised: (i) Parliament does not have the legislative competence to vest intrinsic judicial functions that have been traditionally performed by the High Courts for nearly a century in any Tribunal outside the Judiciary; (ii) The constitution of the National Company Law Tribunal and transferring the entire company jurisdiction of the High Court to the Tribunal which is not under the control of the Judiciary, is violative of the doctrine of separation of powers and independence of the Judiciary which are parts of the basic structure of the Constitution; (iii) Article 323B of the Constitution enables the appropriate Legislature to provide for adjudication or trial by Tribunals of disputes, complaints or offences with respect to all or any of the matters specified in clause (2). Clause (2) enumerate the matters in regard to which Tribunals can be constituted. The said list is exhaustive and not illustrative- The list does not provide for constitution of Tribunal for insolvency, revival and restructuring of the company. In the absence of any amendment to Article 323B providing for a National Tribunal for revival of companies and winding up companies, there is no legislative competence to provide for constitution of NCLT and NCLAT. (iv) The various provisions of Chapters IB and IC of the Act (sections 10FB, 10FD, 10FE, 10FF, 10FL(2), 10FO, 10FR(3), 10FT and 10FX) are defective and unconstitutional, being in breach of basic principles of Rule of Law, Separation of Powers and Independence of the Judiciary- Constitution of India- Articles 323-A & 323-B- Establishment of tribunals- Evasion of independence of judiciary- Gradual dilution of standards and qualifications prescribed for persons to decide cases which were earlier decided by High Court- Shrinking of space occupied by judiciary- Anguish expressed.- HELD: To start with, apart from jurisdiction relating to appeals and revisions in civil, criminal and tax matters (and original civil jurisdiction in some High Courts). The High Courts were exercising original jurisdiction in two important areas; one was writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 (including original jurisdiction in service matters) and the other was in respect to company matters.- After constitution of Administrative Tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the jurisdiction in regard to original jurisdiction relating to service matters was shifted from High Courts to Administrative Tribunals. Section 6 of the said Act deals with qualifications for appointment as Chairman, and it is evident therefrom that the Chairman has to be a High Court Judge either a sitting or a former Judge. For judicial member the qualification was that he should be a judge of a High Court or is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court (i.e. an advocate of the High Court with ten years practice or a holder of a judicial office for ten years) or a person who held the post of Secretary, Govt. of India in the Department of Legal Affairs or in the Legislative Department or Member Secretary, Law Commission of India for a period of two years; or an Additional Secretary to Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs or Legislative Department for a period of five years. For being appointed as Administrative Member, the qualification was that the candidate should have served as Secretary to the Government of India or any other post of the Central or State Government carrying the scale of pay which is not less than as of a Secretary of Government of India for at least two years, or should have held the post of Additional Secretary to the Government of India or any other post of Central or State Government carrying the scale of pay which is not less than that of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India at least for a period of five years. In other words, matters that were decided by the High Courts could be decided by a Tribunal whose members could be two Secretary level officers with two years experience or even two Additional Secretary level officers with five years experience. This was the first dilution. The members were provided a term of office of five years and could hold office till 65 years and the salary and other perquisites of these members were made the same as that of High Court Judges. This itself gave room for a comment that these posts were virtually created as sine cure for members of the executive to extend their period of service by five years from 60 to 65 at a higher pay applicable to High Court Judges. Quite a few members of the executive thus became members of the "Tribunals exercising judicial functions".- We may next refer to Information Technology Act, 2000 which provided for establishment of Cyber Appellate Tribunal with a single member. Section 50 of that Act provided that a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be, a Judge of a High Court, or a person who is, or has been, a member of the India Legal Service and is holding or has held a post in Grade I of that service for at least three years could be appointed as the Presiding Officer. That is, the requirement of even a Secretary level officer is gone. Any member of Indian Legal Service holding a Grade-I Post for three years can be a substitute for a High Court Judge.- The next dilution is by insertion of Chapters 1B in the Companies Act, 1956 with effect from 1.4.2003 providing for constitution of a National Company Law Tribunal with a President and a large number of Judicial and Technical Members (as many as 62). There is a further dilution in the qualifications for members of National Company Law Tribunal which is a substitute for the High Court, for hearing winding up matters and other matters which were earlier heard by High Court. A member need not even be a Secretary or Addl. Secretary Level Officer. All Joint Secretary level civil servants (that are working under Government of India or holding a post under the Central and State Government carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India) for a period of five years are eligible. Further, any person who has held a Group-A post for 15 years (which means anyone belonging to Indian P&T Accounts & Finance Service, Indian Audit and Accounts Service, Indian Customs & Central Excise Service, Indian Defence Accounts Service, Indian Revenue Service, Indian Ordnances Factories Service, Indian Postal Service, Indian Civil Accounts Service, Indian Railway Traffic Service, Indian Railway Accounts Service, Indian Railway Personal Service, Indian Defence Estates Service, Indian Information Service, Indian Trade Services, or other Central or State Service) with three years' of service as a member of Indian Company Law Service (Account) Branch, or who has `dealt' with any problems relating to Company Law can become a Member. This means that the cases which were being decided by the Judges of the High Court can be decided by two-members of the civil services - Joint Secretary level officers or officers holding Group `A' posts or equivalent posts for 15 years, can now discharge the functions of High Court. This again has given room for comment that qualifications prescribed are tailor made to provide sine cure for a large number of Joint Secretary level officers or officers holding Group `A' posts to serve up to 65 years in Tribunals exercising judicial functions.- The dilution of standards may not end here. The proposed Companies Bill, 2008 contemplates that any member of Indian Legal Service or Indian Company Law Service (Legal Branch) with only ten years service, out of which three years should be in the pay scale of Joint Secretary, is qualified to be appointed as a Judicial Member. The speed at which the qualifications for appointment as Members is being diluted is, to say the least, a matter of great concern for the independence of the Judiciary [Full PDF Judgment].R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association [Union of India Vs. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association]- Civil Appeal No. 3067 Of 2004 Judgment Dated- 11.05.2010, Bench: K.G. Balakrishnan, C.J.: R.V. Raveendran, J.: D.K. Jain, J.: P. Sathasivam, J.: J.M. Panchal, J., Citation- 2010(6) SCR 857: 2010(11) SCC 1: 2010(5) JT 553: 2010(5) SCALE 514: 2010(4) Supreme 193: 2010(4) SLT 211: 2010(156) CompCas 392: 2010(261) ELT 3- Quashing- Constitutional validity of Chapters 1B and 1C of the Companies Act, 1956 inserted by Companies (Second Amendment) Act 2002 providing for the constitution of National Company Law Tribunal  and National Company Law Appellate Tribunal- Following issues raised: (i) Parliament does not have the legislative competence to vest intrinsic judicial functions that have been traditionally performed by the High Courts for nearly a century in any Tribunal outside the Judiciary; (ii) The constitution of the National Company Law Tribunal and transferring the entire company jurisdiction of the High Court to the Tribunal which is not under the control of the Judiciary, is violative of the doctrine of separation of powers and independence of the Judiciary which are parts of the basic structure of the Constitution; (iii) Article 323B of the Constitution enables the appropriate Legislature to provide for adjudication or trial by Tribunals of disputes, complaints or offences with respect to all or any of the matters specified in clause (2). Clause (2) enumerate the matters in regard to which Tribunals can be constituted. The said list is exhaustive and not illustrative- The list does not provide for constitution of Tribunal for insolvency, revival and restructuring of the company. In the absence of any amendment to Article 323B providing for a National Tribunal for revival of companies and winding up companies, there is no legislative competence to provide for constitution of NCLT and NCLAT. (iv) The various provisions of Chapters IB and IC of the Act (sections 10FB, 10FD, 10FE, 10FF, 10FL(2), 10FO, 10FR(3), 10FT and 10FX) are defective and unconstitutional, being in breach of basic principles of Rule of Law, Separation of Powers and Independence of the Judiciary- Constitution of India- Articles 323-A & 323-B- Establishment of tribunals- Evasion of independence of judiciary- Gradual dilution of standards and qualifications prescribed for persons to decide cases which were earlier decided by High Court- Shrinking of space occupied by judiciary- Anguish expressed.- HELD: To start with, apart from jurisdiction relating to appeals and revisions in civil, criminal and tax matters (and original civil jurisdiction in some High Courts). The High Courts were exercising original jurisdiction in two important areas; one was writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 (including original jurisdiction in service matters) and the other was in respect to company matters.- After constitution of Administrative Tribunals under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 the jurisdiction in regard to original jurisdiction relating to service matters was shifted from High Courts to Administrative Tribunals. Section 6 of the said Act deals with qualifications for appointment as Chairman, and it is evident therefrom that the Chairman has to be a High Court Judge either a sitting or a former Judge. For judicial member the qualification was that he should be a judge of a High Court or is qualified to be a Judge of the High Court (i.e. an advocate of the High Court with ten years practice or a holder of a judicial office for ten years) or a person who held the post of Secretary, Govt. of India in the Department of Legal Affairs or in the Legislative Department or Member Secretary, Law Commission of India for a period of two years; or an Additional Secretary to Government of India in the Department of Legal Affairs or Legislative Department for a period of five years. For being appointed as Administrative Member, the qualification was that the candidate should have served as Secretary to the Government of India or any other post of the Central or State Government carrying the scale of pay which is not less than as of a Secretary of Government of India for at least two years, or should have held the post of Additional Secretary to the Government of India or any other post of Central or State Government carrying the scale of pay which is not less than that of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India at least for a period of five years. In other words, matters that were decided by the High Courts could be decided by a Tribunal whose members could be two Secretary level officers with two years experience or even two Additional Secretary level officers with five years experience. This was the first dilution. The members were provided a term of office of five years and could hold office till 65 years and the salary and other perquisites of these members were made the same as that of High Court Judges. This itself gave room for a comment that these posts were virtually created as sine cure for members of the executive to extend their period of service by five years from 60 to 65 at a higher pay applicable to High Court Judges. Quite a few members of the executive thus became members of the "Tribunals exercising judicial functions".- We may next refer to Information Technology Act, 2000 which provided for establishment of Cyber Appellate Tribunal with a single member. Section 50 of that Act provided that a person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be, a Judge of a High Court, or a person who is, or has been, a member of the India Legal Service and is holding or has held a post in Grade I of that service for at least three years could be appointed as the Presiding Officer. That is, the requirement of even a Secretary level officer is gone. Any member of Indian Legal Service holding a Grade-I Post for three years can be a substitute for a High Court Judge.- The next dilution is by insertion of Chapters 1B in the Companies Act, 1956 with effect from 1.4.2003 providing for constitution of a National Company Law Tribunal with a President and a large number of Judicial and Technical Members (as many as 62). There is a further dilution in the qualifications for members of National Company Law Tribunal which is a substitute for the High Court, for hearing winding up matters and other matters which were earlier heard by High Court. A member need not even be a Secretary or Addl. Secretary Level Officer. All Joint Secretary level civil servants (that are working under Government of India or holding a post under the Central and State Government carrying a scale of pay which is not less than that of the Joint Secretary to the Government of India) for a period of five years are eligible. Further, any person who has held a Group-A post for 15 years (which means anyone belonging to Indian P&T Accounts & Finance Service, Indian Audit and Accounts Service, Indian Customs & Central Excise Service, Indian Defence Accounts Service, Indian Revenue Service, Indian Ordnances Factories Service, Indian Postal Service, Indian Civil Accounts Service, Indian Railway Traffic Service, Indian Railway Accounts Service, Indian Railway Personal Service, Indian Defence Estates Service, Indian Information Service, Indian Trade Services, or other Central or State Service) with three years' of service as a member of Indian Company Law Service (Account) Branch, or who has `dealt' with any problems relating to Company Law can become a Member. This means that the cases which were being decided by the Judges of the High Court can be decided by two-members of the civil services - Joint Secretary level officers or officers holding Group `A' posts or equivalent posts for 15 years, can now discharge the functions of High Court. This again has given room for comment that qualifications prescribed are tailor made to provide sine cure for a large number of Joint Secretary level officers or officers holding Group `A' posts to serve up to 65 years in Tribunals exercising judicial functions.- The dilution of standards may not end here. The proposed Companies Bill, 2008 contemplates that any member of Indian Legal Service or Indian Company Law Service (Legal Branch) with only ten years service, out of which three years should be in the pay scale of Joint Secretary, is qualified to be appointed as a Judicial Member. The speed at which the qualifications for appointment as Members is being diluted is, to say the least, a matter of great concern for the independence of the Judiciary- Ultra Vires of Articles 13, 14, 19 and 50 of the Constitution of India- void, defective and unconstitutional, being violative of doctrines of separation of powers and independence of judiciary [Full PDF Judgment-18.05.2007] [Full PDF Judgment-11.05.2010].
    • Riju Prasad Sarma Vs. State of Assam: (2015) 9 SCC 461- Writ- Jurisdiction- Held, when the High Court or the Supreme Court acts in its administrative capacity, then only it is considered to fall within the definition of “State” within the meaning of Article 12, “68. Hence, in accordance with such judgments holding that the judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction and for want of requisite governmental control, judiciary cannot be a State under Article 12, we also hold that while acting on the judicial side the courts are not included in the definition of the State….”. 
    • Riju Prasad Sarma Vs. State of Assam: (2015) 9 SCC 461- Writ- Jurisdiction- Held, when the High Court or the Supreme Court acts in its administrative capacity, then only it is considered to fall within the definition of “State” within the meaning of Article 12, “68. Hence, in accordance with such judgments holding that the judgments of the High Court and the Supreme Court cannot be subjected to writ jurisdiction and for want of requisite governmental control, judiciary cannot be a State under Article 12, we also hold that while acting on the judicial side the courts are not included in the definition of the State….”. 
    • Ritesh Sinha v. State of UP and another-(2013) 2 SCC 357- Criminal Laws- Voice Sample- Court below has no power to direct the accused to give voice sample to the investigating agency for verification- In another Case, the SC had conflicting views and hence, the matter has already referred to a larger bench and the same is pending adjudication [Full PDF Judgment].
    • R.K. Garg v. Union of India (1982) 1 SCR 947- Taxation Laws- Held, “every legislation particularly in economic matters is essentially empiric and it is based on experimentation or what one may call trial and error method and therefore, it cannot provide for all possible situations or anticipate all possible abuses.” [Full PDF Judgments].
    • R.K. Jain Vs. Union Of India-3JBSC-14.05.1993- 1993 AIR 1769= 1993 SCC  (4) 119- Constitutional Laws- Constitution of India- Art-75(3)- The principle of Collective   responsibility  under Art-75(3) of the Constitution [Full PDF Judgment].
    • R. Kalyani vs. Janak C. Mehta & ors., SC-24.10.2008- Crl. A.No. 1694 OF 2008- (2009) 1 SCC 516-Quashing of Proceedings- Quashing of FIR-Inherent power [Full PDF Judgments].
    • R.M.Malkani v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 1 SCC 471]- Criminal Law- Inquiry & Investigation- S-73- Evidence Act- absence of any specific provision- Practice & Procedure- inherent powers- ancillary powers- Tape recorded conversation is admissible in evidence  subject to certain certain conditions- Identification of the voice is a prerequisite- Without identification of voice, the tape recorded conversation is not admissible [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Robust Hotels Pvt. Ltd. &  Ors. - Vs. Eih Limited & Ors. - Civil Appeal Nos. 11886­11887 Of 2016- SC- 07.12.2016- CPC-O-39-R-2A-2017-1-SCC-622 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Rohit Tandon Vs. The Enforcement Directorate, Criminal Appeal Nos.1878-­1879-3JBSC-10.11.2017-_______- Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes- Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2012 (PMLA)- S-45- The Court was not called upon to consider the efficacy of Section 45 of the Act of 2002- Held, “18. The consistent view taken by this Court is that economic offences having deep­rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.  Further, when attempt is made to project the proceeds   of   crime   as   untainted   money   and   also   that   the allegations may not ultimately be established,  but having been made,   the   burden   of   proof   that   the   monies   were   not   the proceeds of crime and were not, therefore, tainted shifts  on the accused persons under Section 24 of the Act of 2002.”.- Further held, “19…. It has been expounded that the Court at the stage of considering the application for grant of bail, shall consider the question   from   the   angle   as   to   whether   the   accused   was possessed of the requisite mens rea.  The Court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence   under   the   Act.   The   Court   ought   to   maintain   a delicate   balance   between   a   judgment   of   acquittal   and conviction   and   an   order   granting   bail   much   before commencement of trial. The duty of the Court at this stage is not   to   weigh   the   evidence   meticulously   but   to   arrive   at   a finding on the basis of broad probabilities.  Further, the Court is   required   to   record   a   finding   as   to   the   possibility   of   the accused committing a crime which is an offence under the Act after grant of bail. Further held, “27. Suffice it to observe that the appellant has not succeeded in   persuading  us about  the  inapplicability  of  the  threshold stipulation under Section 45 of the Act…… It   is,   therefore,   not   possible   for   us   to   record satisfaction that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant is not guilty of such offence.  Further, the Courts below have justly adverted to the antecedents of the appellant for considering the prayer for bail and concluded that it is not possible to hold that the appellant is not likely to commit any offence ascribable to the Act of 2002 while on bail. Since the threshold stipulation predicated in Section 45 has not been overcome,   the   question   of   considering   the   efficacy   of   other points urged by the appellant to persuade the Court to favour the appellant with the relief of regular bail will be of no avail. In other words, the fact that the investigation in the predicate offence instituted in terms of FIR No.205/2016   or that the investigation   qua   the   appellant   in   the   complaint   CC No.700/2017 is completed; and that the proceeds of crime is already in   possession   of   the   investigating   agency   and provisional attachment order in relation thereto passed on 13th February, 2017 has been confirmed; or that charge­sheet has been filed in FIR No.205/2016 against the appellant without his   arrest;   that   the   appellant   has   been   lodged   in   judicial custody since 2nd January, 2017 and has not been interrogated or  examined   by   the   Enforcement   Directorate   thereafter;   all these will be of no consequence.” [Full PDF Judgment] Rohit-Tondan-DelHC-05.05.2017-Bail-Application-119-of-2017-Bail-in-PMLA-ED-and-Analogous-Crimes[Full PDF Judgments].
    • Roma Rajesh Tiwari Vs. Rajesh Dinanath Tiwari - Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Writ Petition No.10696 Of 2017 - BomHC- 12.10.2017- -S-19-1-A- DV Act- Restraint Orders Qua Residence [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Romesh Thappar Vs.The State Of Madras, SC-26.05.1950- Original Suit No.-16 of 1950- 1950 AIR  124-1950 SCR  594- Fundamental rights- Free speech and expression-Article 19(1)(a)-Restrictions, Extent & Scope [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Romila Thapar vs. Union of India- Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 260 OF 2018- SC-28.09.2018- Political Arrests- Bhima Koregaon Case [Full PDF Judgment]
    • R. Paramasivan Vs. The Home Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu - WRIT      APPEAL No. 1181 of 2016 - MadHC- 22.09.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • R. P. KAPUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB-5JBSC-25.03.1960- 1960 AIR 862-1960 SCR (3) 311- Quashing of Proceedings- Quashing of FIR-Inherent power-In this Case the Supreme  Court summarized some categories of cases where inherent power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. (i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against the institution or continuance e.g. want of sanction; (ii) where the allegations in the first information report or complaint taken at its face value and accepted in their entirety do not constitute the offence alleged; (iii) where the allegations constitute an offence, but there is no legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly fails to prove the charge [Full PDF Judgments]. 
    • RPP Infra Projects Ltd. Versus. NTPC Tamil Nadu Energy, O.M.P. 924/2014, Judgment Dated: 16/12/2014, Bench: Deepa Sharma, J., Delhi High Court- Citation: 2015(3) R.A.J. 29: 2015(1) ArbLR 242- Banking & Finance- Bank Guarantee- Stipulation of amount payable without demure or objection, effect of- Held, bank guarantees in dispute, clearly in unequivocal terms and unconditionally recite that amount would be paid without demure or objection- Bank guarantee thus is an independent contract between bank and beneficiary and can be challenged only on ground of fraud and irreparable injury.- Hindustan Construction vs. State of Bihar, (1999) 8 SCC 436, Relied on (Para 12) [Full PDF Judgments].
    • R. Rajagopal V. State Of T.N. (Auto Shankar Case)- (1994) 6 SCC 632- Relied Upon- Fundamental Rights- Protection Of Right Of Privacy Vis-A-Vis Defamation [Full PDF Judgment].`
    • R.Sakkrapani Whip, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly Vs. Secretary Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly- WP Nos. 26017, 27853 to 27856 of 2017 - MadHC - 27.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • R.S. Dahiya  Vs. State- (Through Nct Of Delhi)- CRL.A. 54 of 2004- DelHC-03.01.2018- S-34 IPC- S-313 CrPC- To invoke Section-34 against the accused, active participation is a must- Unless a circumstance appearing against the accused is put to him in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the same cannot be used against him [Full PDF Judgments].
    • R.S. Nayak Vs. A.R. Antulay-Criminal Appeal No. 658 of 1985- SC-17.04.1996-1986-AIR 2045-1986 SCC  (2) 716- Framing of Charge- Whether  a charge should be framed against the accused  or not- Test of prima facie case to be applied- Comparison between S-245(1), S-227, S-239, & S-245 CrPC- Ingredients      of  Cheating, U/S-415 IPC & 420 IPC explained- Ingredients  of  extortion-U/S-383 IPC & 384 IPC explained [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • R.S. Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka- Civil Appeal No. 5617 Of 1990-Sc-04.10.1991- AIR 1992 SC 81- Notwithstanding any laws to the contrary-  Non-Obstante Clause- Held, “the general rule to be followed in case of conflict between the two statutes is that the later abrogates the earlier one.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ruby Begum Alias Rina Samina Vs. State (Nct) Of Delhi- Evidence- CRL.APPL. No.1074 Of 2016-  Family members- Interested witnesses- Presumption- U/S-106- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Rufina D’ souza vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai- Civil Appeal No. 3798 OF 2017- 3JBSC-09.03.2017- (2017) 4 SCC 81- Judicial Review- Parameters- Permissible Grounds & Impediments- Disputed Question of Fact- Pendency of Unrelated Court Proceedings- Held, “5….The High Court may be right in observing that disputed questions need not be gone into in writ proceedings, but that does not preclude the writ petitioners from challenging the show cause notices issued by the statutory authority on permissible grounds. It is open to the Court to consider the challenge on the touchstone and parameters delineated for judicial review of such action. The fact that a suit for specific performance was pending between the private parties and they were unable to strike any settlement, cannot be a tangible reason to decline to examine the grounds of challenge put forth by the writ petitioners in relation to the impugned notices.”- Further held, “6. Suffice it to observe that the High Court ought to have examined the grounds of challenge and the reliefs claimed by the appellants in the writ petition concerning the action initiated by the statutory authority. That challenge will have to be examined, uninfluenced by the pendency of the suit for specific performance between the private parties.”. [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Rupali Gupta Vs. Rajat Gupta- MAT.APP.(F.C.) 143/2014- DHC- 05.09.2016- Professionally-Qualified, Capable Of Sustaining Self Spouse Not Entitled To Interim Maintenance [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Rupa Ashok Hurra Vs. Ashok Hurra-SC-10.04.2002- Writ Petition (civil) 509 of 1997- (2002) 4 SCC 388- Curative Petition- Issue, Whether the judgment of this Court dated March 10, 1997 in Civil Appeal No.1843 of 1997 can be regarded as a nullity- Also, whether a writ petition under Art-32 of the Constitution can be maintained to question the validity of a judgment of this Court after the petition for review of the said judgment has been dismissed [Full PDF Judgments- First PartSecond PartThird Part | Fourth Part].
    • Rupali Lamba & Anr Vs Sukhwant Singh Lamba - L.P.A. 28 Of 2015 -DelHC-24.08.2018- Hc Lacks Such Jurisdiction [Full PDF Judgment].

    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  

    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.

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