• Judgments-U

  • 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

    • Udhav Singh- 1997(5) SCC 129- Judicial Discipline - “.......Maintenance Of Discipline In The Judicial Service Is A Paramount Matter. Acceptability Of The Judgment Depends Upon The Credibility Of The Conduct, Honesty, Integrity And Character Of The Officer. The Confidence Of The Litigating Public Gets Affected Or Shaken By Lack Of Integrity And Character Of Judicial Officer.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ujjal Kumar Das V. State Bank Of India- Sarfaesi Act 2002 [Full Pdf Judgment].2.    Gurcharan Singh And Others /Vs/ State (Delhi Administration) 1978 (1) Scc 118- Bail [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Ultratech Cement Limited- DelHC-07.12.2017- W.P.(C) 6589 of 2016 Vs. State Of Gujarat- AAIFR- SICA- Tax Exemptions [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Umakant Kisan Mane Versus The Dean & Others, Writ Petition No.431 Of 2003, Judgment Dated: 21.12.2015, Bench: K.R.Shriram & A.S.Oka, , JJ, Bombay High Court- Consumer Laws- Medical Negligence- Issue, petitioner attributed direct negligence on the part of the doctor/ hospital- Held, “30 In our view, the cause for the petitioner losing the fingers of his right hand is directly attributable to the gross and direct negligence on the part of the doctors and nursing staff of Rajawadi Hospital run by the respondent-State. There has been gross negligence on the part of the respondents in performing its duties. The petitioner, therefore, is certainly entitled to compensation in the nature of exemplary damages from the respondents. The petitioner in the petition has stated that fitters earn in the region of Rs.5000/- – Rs.7000/- per month, which in our view is rather reasonable. This was the position in 2002/2003 when the petition was filed. Based on this, the petitioner has claimed Rs.10,00,000/-. Factoring inflation and the changed economic scenario, the petitioner should be entitled to higher compensation. The petitioner, however, is claiming only Rs.10 lakhs. We are, therefore, granting this amount as compensation. The respondents are, therefore, directed to pay the amount of Rs.10 lakhs to the petitioner. The respondents also to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount for the period beginning from 1 st November, 2002 until payment/realisation. The principal and interest amount shall be deposited in this court with the Protho notary and Senior Master within two months from today. Failure to do so will attract further interest @ 9% p.a. on the principal amount of Rs.10 lakhs and the accumulated interest.”.
    • Umar-Khalid-DHC-12.10.2017-Quashing-Disciplinary-Authority-Proceedings [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Umed Ram Sharma [State Of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Umed Ram Sharma]- 3JBSC-11.02.1986- 1986 AIR  847- 1986 SCC (2)     68- Writ- Constitution of India- Art- 226 & 32- Art-19(1)(d), 21 & 38- Basic Amenities- Water- Food- Road- Education- Articles- Right to life embraces not only physical existence of life but the     quality of  life -  For residents  of hilly  areas Access    to   road,  access   to  life  itself  -  Roads   for communication -     Provision of  -  Constitutional  obligation Court -    Whether entitled  to give  directions in  cases  of executive inaction or slow action.
    • Umesh Chandra Vs. State Of Rajasthan-SC-02.04.1982-1982 AIR 1057- 1982 SCC-(2)-202- POCSO- Age determination [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Umesh Kumar Versus State of Andhra Pradesh-SC-06.09.2013-Criminal Appeal No.1305 of 2013- _______- Quashing- FIR- Chargesheet- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC.- Framing of charge- S-227, 228, 239, 240, 245 & 246 CrPC- Sufficient ground for proceeding- At the stage of framing the charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused-The court was not required to appreciate the evidence and arrive at the conclusion that the materials produced were sufficient or not for convicting the accused- The Court has to see whether a prima facie case is made out for proceeding further- The charge can be quashed if the evidence which the prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged by cross examination or rebutted by defence evidence, if any, cannot show that accused committed the particular offence. Held, “11. Allegations against any person if found to be false or made forging some one else signature may affect his reputation. Reputation is a sort of right to enjoy the good opinion of others and it is a personal right and an enquiry to reputation is a personal injury. Thus, scandal and defamation are injurious to reputation. Reputation has been defined in dictionary as "to have a good name; the credit, honor, or character which is derived from a favourable public opinion or esteem and character by report". Personal rights of a human being include the right of reputation. A good reputation is an element of personal security and is protected by the Constitution equally with the right to the enjoyment of life, liberty and property”.- “Therefore, it has been held to be a necessary element in regard to right to life of a citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 recognizes the right to have opinions and the right of freedom of expression under Article 19 is subject to the right of reputation of others. Reputation is "not only a salt of life but the purest treasure and the most precious perfume of life." (Vide: Smt. Kiran Bedi & Jinder Singh v. The Committee of Inquiry & Anr., AIR 1989 SC 714; Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay v. Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni & Ors., AIR 1983 SC 109; Nilgiris Bar Association v. TK Mahalingam & Anr., AIR 1998 SC 398; Dr. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2573; Vishwanath Sitaram Agrawal v. Sau Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal, AIR 2012 SC 586; and Kishore Samrite v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2013) 2 SCC 398).”- “Once criminal law is put in motion and after investigation the charge sheet is filed, it requires scrutiny in the court of law.”- “The scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C. is well defined and inherent powers could be exercised by the High Court to give effect to an order under the Cr.P.C.; to prevent abuse of the process of court; and to otherwise secure the ends of justice. This extraordinary power is to be exercised ex debito justitiae. However, in exercise of such powers, it is not permissible for the High Court to appreciate the evidence as it can only evaluate material documents on record to the extent of its prima facie satisfaction about the existence of sufficient ground for proceedings against the accused and the court cannot look into materials, the acceptability of which is essentially a matter for trial.”- Any document filed along with the petition labelled as evidence without being tested and proved, cannot be examined. Law does not prohibit entertaining the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the charge sheet even before the charges are framed or before the application of discharge is filed or even during its pendency of such application before the court concerned. The High Court cannot reject the application merely on the ground that the accused can argue legal and factual issues at the time of the framing of the charge.”- Held, “It may be relevant in an appropriate case. My view is that entertaining the writ petitions against charge-sheet and considering the matter on merit on the guise of prima facie evidence to stand on accused for trial amounts to pre-trial of a criminal trial It is not to suggest that under no circumstances a writ petition should be entertained . The charge-sheet and the evidence placed in support thereof form the base to take or refuse to take cognizance by the competent Court. It is not the case that no offence has been made out in the charge sheets and the First Information Report."- When the charges are framed, the court makes an endorsement till that stage. So charges are framed on the materials produced by the prosecution for framing the charges "at that stage". Such indication is necessary otherwise the provisions contained in Sections 216, 323, 386, 397, 399, 401 etc. Cr.P.C., would be rendered nugatory and denuded a competent court of the powers under those provisions. The court cannot be restrained from exercising its powers either under Section 323 or Section 216 Cr.P.C.- Further held, “It is a settled legal proposition that even if a document is procured by improper or illegal means, there is no bar to its admissibility if it is relevant and its genuineness is proved. If the evidence is admissible, it does not matter how it has been obtained. However, as a matter of caution, the court in exercise of its discretion may disallow certain evidence in a criminal case if the strict rules of admissibility would operate unfairly against the accused. More so, the court must conclude that it is genuine and free from tampering or mutilation.”- Further held, “30. Attestation of the undated affidavit is in utter disregard to the provisions of Section 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. (Hereinafter referred to as the `CPC'). The Supreme Court Rules 1966 under Order XI, Rule 7 also require adherence to the provisions of Section 139 CPC. Hence, his reply is not worth taking on record and being undated, renders the same to be a piece of waste paper. The definition of 'affidavit' in Section 3(3) of the General Clauses Act 1897 provides that it "shall include affirmation and declaration in the case of persons by law allowed to affirm or declare instead of swearing" [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Unnikrishnan @ Unnikuttan Vs. State Of Kerala -Crl Mp No. 18630 Of 2016-Sc-01.03.2017- Compounding of Case [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Uphar Tragedy [Association Of Victims Of Uphaar Tragedy Vs. Sushil Ansal]- Review Petition - Criminal - Nos. 712-714 Of 2015 In Criminal Appeals Nos. 600-602 Of 2010 - SC- 09.02.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • U.P.SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma- (2010) 6 SCC 555- Service Law- Labour Law- Natural Justice- Inquiry- Dismissal- Termination- Acts of corruption & misappropriation cannot be condoned, even in cases where the amount involved is meagre.
    • Ushaben [Suo Motu Versus Ushaben Kishorbhai Mistry]- GujHC-27.11.2015- Criminal Reference No. 6 Of 2015 In Special Criminal Application No. 5313 Of 2015, Judgment Dated- 27.11.2015, Bench- Jayant Patel, ACJ, N.V.Anjaria, J. Gujrat High Court- D V Act- S-482 Cr.P.C. can be invoked by High Courts for quashing a DV Act Complaint Case before the Magistrate [Full PDF Judgment].
    • U. Sree  Vs. U. Srinivas- SC-11.12.2012- Civil Appeal Nos. 8927-8928 Of 2012- Cruelty-S-13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Utility Users [State Of Gujarat & Ors. Vs. Utility Users’ Welfare Association]- Civil Appeal No.14697 Of 2015 - SC- 12.04.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited Vs. Rajesh Kumar- (2012) 7 SCC 1- A request for a revisit of Order cannot be entertained ad nauseam [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Uttar Pradesh Sugar Corporation Vs. Sumac International Limited- (1997)- 1- SCC -568- S-14 & S-41(e)- S-9-Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996- Specific Relief Act- S-35(3) CPC- Termination of contract- Invocation of bank guarantees- Blacklisting of the petitioner- Held, “14. On the question of irretrievable injury which is the second exception to the rule against granting of injunctions when unconditional bank guarantees are sought to be realized the court said in the above case that the irretrievable injury must be of the kind which was the subject matter of the decision in Intex Corpon Vs. First National Bank of Boston 566 Fed Supp. 1210- Other related case, Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Federation Limited v. Three Circles (2009) 10 SCC 374 [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