• Judgments-V

  • 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

    • Vaaan Infra Pvt. Ltd.  Vs. South Delhi Municipal Corporation- W.P.(C)- 11348 of 2017- Conflict of interest clause- Award of public contracts- Tenders- The allegations of mala fides, or illegality, or procedural irregularity, is only what the court considers under this jurisdiction- Held, “20. This Court is of opinion that the limited role and discretion it possesses, under Article 226 in adjudging issues relating to award of public contracts, from the lens of public law parameters, is insufficient for it to don the role of evaluating whether the tender conditions, which facially bar the petitioners, were unfairly drawn…”. [Full PDF Judgment]- conflict of interest clause- Award of public contracts- Tenders- The allegations of mala fides, or illegality, or procedural irregularity, is only what the court considers under this jurisdiction- Held, “20. This Court is of opinion that the limited role and discretion it possesses, under Article 226 in adjudging issues relating to award of public contracts, from the lens of public law parameters, is insufficient for it to don the role of evaluating whether the tender conditions, which facially bar the petitioners, were unfairly drawn…”. [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke Vs State of Maharashtra and Another- Criminal Appeal No. 765 OF 2018- SC-17.05.2018- Quashing of FIR- S-306 IPC- Abetment to commit suicide- [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vangaveeti Nagaiah [State of A.P. Vs. Vangaveeti Nagaiah]- 3JBSC-15.04.2009-Criminal Appeal No. 1190 OF 2003-AIR 2009 SC 2646- Quashing of Proceedings- Quashing of FIR-Inherent power- “Held, 6. In dealing with the last category, it is important to bear in mind the distinction between a case where there is no legal evidence or where there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent with the accusations made, and a case where there is legal evidence which, on appreciation, may or may not support the accusations. When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial process no doubt should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the Section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death. The scope of exercise of power under Section 482 of the Code and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in some detail by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [ 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335]…..”[Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vasant Narayan Sardal Vs. Ashita Tham & Ors. - Notice Of Motion No. 74 Of 2015 In Testamentary Suit No. 14 Of 2004 In Testamentary Petition No. 80 Of 2004-BomHC-03.05.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • V. Bhagat vs. D. Bhagat- SC-19.11.1993- (1994) 1 SCC 337= 1994-AIR-710=Jt=1993-6-428=1993-Scale-4-488-Divorce-HMA- S- 13(1)(a)-  Held, “Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party, such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • V. Chitambaresh & K.P.Jyothindranath, JJ.- WP(Crl) No. 178 of 2018- KerHC-01.06.2018- Marriage- Live-in Relationships- Live-in Partners [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • V. C. Shukla Vs CBI- SC-07.12.1979- 1980 CrLJ 690, 732- Order Framing Charge-Interlocutory Order [Full PDF Judgments].
    • Ved Pal Vs. State Of U.P.- 1987 (Supp) SCC 596 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Venture Global Engineering Llc  Vs. Tech Mahindra Ltd & Anr Etc. - Civil Appeal No. 17753-17755 Of 2017 - Sc- 01.11.2017- Arbitration-Estoppel, Public Policy, & fraud [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vesa Holdings P. Ltd. Vs. State of Kerala, Criminal Appeal No. 2341/2011, Judgment Dated-17/03/2015, 2015(3) SCALE 782, 2015(3) SLT 501, 2015(2) Crimes 114(SC) Bench-V. Gopala Gowda & J.: C. Nagappan, JJ [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vichar Kranti International- State Of Jammu And Kashmir Versus Vichar Kranti International & Anr., Civil Appeal No .10286 Of 2016, Judgment Dated: 21.10.2016, Bench: T S Thakur, AM Khanwilkar & Dr. D Y Chandrachud, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Quashing of Govt. Policy- Direction to reconsider [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vithu C. Agaskar Vs. Rama Gajanan Agaskar - First Appeal No. 916 Of 1991 -     BomHC-15.06.2018 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vijay Kumar Mishra, Samastipur  Versus Central Board of Secondary Education, Patna, File No. CIC/RM/A/2014/000014­SA, Judgment Dated: 03.12.2015, M. S. ACHARYULU, IC, Central Information Commission- The father of a student seeks copies of the answer sheets of his son for the subjects Maths and Science of 12th Class examination appeared in 2013 and the related matters.Claiming non- furnishing of information by the respondent authority, the appellant approached the Commission in second appeal after exhausting the first appeal with the respondent authority [Full PDF Judgment]. 
    • Vijay Laxmi Sadho (Dr. ) Vs. Jagdish, (2001) 2 SCC 247- Procedural Laws- Substantive laws- Held “Rules framed by the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 225 of the Constitution of India are only Rules of procedure and do not constitute substantive law.”.
    • Vikas Yadav Vs. State Of  U.P. And Ors. Etc. Etc. - Criminal Appeal Nos. 1531-1533 Of 2015- SC- 03.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vikash v. State, Crl. M.C. 3172/2014(22/07/2014), 2014(3) JCC 1919 [Sudershan Kr. Misra, J.] [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Vikram Deo Singh Tomar Vs. State of Bihar- 3JBSC-02.08.1988- 1988 AIR 1782Writ- Constitution of India- Writ- Art- 226 & 32- Art-19(1)(d), 21 & 38- Basic Amenities- Water- Food- Road- Education [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Vikramsinh Dattusinh Chauhan [The State of Maharashtra Vs. Vikramsinh Dattusinh Chauhan]- BomHC-10.11.2017- Criminal Writ Petition No. 718 OF 2016- Criminal Law- Right of Accused- Right of Prisoner- Home Food- Held, "4. Since every accused person is presumed to be innocent person till he is held guilty, the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner cannot be a ground to deny him the facilities available to all the under-­trial prisoners unless there are special reasons for denying so.". [Full PDF Judgment]Vineet Narain Vs.  Union of India [1988 (1) SCC 226 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vineet Narain Vs. Union of India (1998) 1 SCC 226- SC-18.12.1997-Quashing- Appointment- CBI- Challenge to Appointment of CBI Director [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit, (2006) 3 SCC 778- Divorce-HMA- S- 13(1)(a) [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vineet Kacker Vs.The State Of Maharashtra - Criminal Writ Petition No. 2713 Of 2009-BomHC-26.09.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vinod Bhandari v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No. 220/2015 Judgment Dated- 04/02/2015, Bench- T.S. Thakur, J.& Adarsh Kumar Goel, JJ Citations- 2015(2) SCALE 195= 2015(2) SLT 66=  2015(1) Crimes 160(SC)= 2015 CrLJ 1547= 2015(2) JCC 1127= 2015(1) JT 600 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Vinod Kumar Versus State Of Haryana & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 392 OF 2008, Judgment Dated: 24.10.2013, Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya & A.K. Sikri,, JJ, Supreme Court Of India-Power of Review by an administrative authority- Held, “17.We would like to make certain comments, at this juncture, on the powers of the successor DGP, Haryana in over turning the decision of his predecessor who had accepted the representation and expunged the adverse remarks in a petition which was not maintainable and wholly unwarranted. The general principle is that merely because there is a change in the regime or when the successor assumes the office, he would not be entitled to review and reopen the cases decided by his predecessor. That would apply in those cases where the predecessor had passed the orders which he was empowered to pass under the Rules and had exercised his discretion in taking a particular view. Therefore, this proposition applies in a situation where order of the predecessor resulted in legal, binding and conclusive decision. However, the position would be different when it is found that the order of the predecessor was without jurisdiction or when a palpably illegal order was passed disregarding all the cannons of administrative law viz. when the predecessor’s decision was without jurisdiction or ultra vires or when it was exfacie an act of favoritism. In the present case we find that not only the order passed by earlier DGP, Haryana was ultra vires, as that was not backed by any authority vested in it under the Rules as the representation/ mercy petition was not maintainable, even while exercising its discretion in passing that order, the alleged reasons are abhorrent to the good administration/ governance and in fact there was no valid reason or justification shown in exercise of the non existent power. It was, thus, not a case of mere discretion which the DGP was empowered to exercise or the exercise of power on rational basis. Undue sympathy, that too without stating any such sympathetic grounds would be anathema to fairness. There has to be fairness in the administrative action and it should be free from vice of arbitrariness. We may usefully refer to the judgment of the English Court in the case of Roberts v. Hopwood; 1925 All E.R. 24 laying down the law in the following terms: “.... A person in whom is vested a discretion must exercise his discretion upon reasonable grounds. A discretion does not empower a man to do what her likes merely because he is minded to do so – he must in the exercise of his discretion do not what he likes but what he ought. In other words, he must, by use of his reason, ascertain and follow the course which reason directs. He must act reasonably.....”-  Further held, “18. The matter can be looked into from another angle as well. In those cases where Courts are concerned with the judicial review of the administrative action, the parameters within which administrative action can be reviewed by the courts are well settled. No doubt, the scope of judicial review is limited and the courts do not go into the merits of the decision taken by the administrative authorities but are concerned with the decision making process. Interference with the order of the administrative authority is permissible when it is found to be irrational, unreasonable or there is procedural impropriety. However, where reasonable conduct is expected, the criterion of reasonableness is not subjective but objective; albeit the onus of establishment of unreasonableness rests upon the person challenging the validity of the acts. It is also trite that while exercising limited power of judicial review on the grounds mentioned above, the court can examine whether administrative decisions in exercise of powers, even if conferred in subjective terms are made in good faith and on relevant considerations. The courts inquire whether a reasonable man could have come to the decision in question without misdirecting himself on the law or facts in a material respect.(See: M.A.Rasheed & Ors. v. The State of Kerala; (1974) 2 SCC 687). The decision of the administrative authority must be related to the purpose of the enabling provisions of Rules or Statutes, as the case may be. If they are manifestly unjust or outrageous or directed to an unauthorized end, such decisions can be set aside as arbitrary and unreasonable. Likewise, when action taken is ultra vires, such action/decision has no legal basis and can be set aside on that ground. When there are Rules framed delineating the powers of the authority as well as the procedure to be followed while exercising those powers, the authority has to act within the limits defined by those Rules. A repository of power acts ultra vires either when he acts in excess of his power in the narrow sense or when he abuses his power by acting in bad faith or for an inadmissible purpose or on irrelevant grounds or without regard to relevant considerations or with gross unreasonableness. This was so explained in S hri Sitaram Sugar Co.Ltd. v. Union of India (1990) 3 SCC 223 in the following manner: “A repository of power acts ultra vires either when he acts in excess of his power in the narrow sense or when he abuses his power by acting in bad faith or for an inadmissible purpose or on irrelevant grounds or without regard to relevant considerations or with gross unreasonableness. See Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, [1948] 1 K.B. 223. In the words of Lord Macnaghten in Westminster Corporation v. London and North Western Railway, [1905] AC 426: “...It is well settled that a public body invested with statutory powers such as those conferred upon the Corporation must take care not to exceed or abuse its powers. It must keep within the limits of the authority committed to it. It must act in good faith. And it must act reasonably. The last proposition is involved in the second, if not in the first....” In Barium Chemicals Ltd. and Anr. v. The Company Law Board and Ors., : [1966] Supp. SCR 311, this Court states: “...Even if (the statutory order) is passed in good faith and with the best of intention to further the purpose of the legislation which confers the powers, since the Authority has to act in accordance with and within the limits of that legislation, its order can also be challenged if it is beyond those limits or is passed on grounds extraneous to the legislation or if there are no grounds at all for passing it or if the grounds are such that no one can reasonably arrive at the opinion or satisfaction requisite under the legislation. In any one of these situations it can well be said that the authority did not honestly form its opinion or that in forming it, it did not apply its mind to the relevant facts.” In Renusagar, AIR1988SC1737 , Mukharji, J., as he then was, states: “The exercise of power whether legislative or administrative will be set aside if there is manifest error in the exercise of such power or the exercise of the power is manifestly arbitrary. Similarly, if the power has been exercised on a non-consideration or nonapplication of mind to relevant factors the exercise of power will be regarded as manifestly erroneous. If a power (whether legislative or administrative) is exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist and which are patently erroneous, such exercise of power will stand vitiated”. The true position, therefore, is that any act of the repository of power, whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial, is open to challenge if it is in conflict with the Constitution or the governing Act or the general principles of the law of the land or it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have made it.”- Further held, “19. Thus, if wrong and illegal acts, applying the aforesaid parameters of judicial review can be set aside by the courts, obviously the same mischief can be undone by the administrative authorities themselves by reviewing such an order if found to be ultra vires. Of course, it is to be done after following the principles of natural justice. This is precisely the position in the instant case and we are of the considered opinion that it was open to the respondents to take corrective measures by annulling the palpably illegal order of the earlier DGP, Haryana.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vinod Kumar Kanojia Vs. UOI- WP(C) No.6302/2010- DelHc-22.09.2010- Ban on Screening of film- Ban on film- Ultra vires the Art.-19(1) of Constitution of India- Fundamental Right of Freedom of Expression in Cinematographer Act of 1952 [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Vinod Singh Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi- 2011(3) JCC 2041- Criminal Law- Test Identification Parade [TIP]- Held, “It is true that the refusal of an accused to participate in TIP without a reasonable explanation may give rise to an adverse inference against him and may be taken as a reason to accept the dock identification of the accused by the witnesses. This, however, is not an absolute tule. Before drawing an adverse inference on account of refusal to participate in TIP, the Court is under obligation to scrutinize the evidence carefully to satisfy its conscience that there are circumstances justifying the drawing of adverse presumption.” [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vinod Surha & Anr. Vs. State Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi - Crl. M.C. No. 1143 Of 2017 - DelHC-11.07.2017 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vinubhai Ranchhodbhai Patel Vs. Rajivbhai Dudabhai Patel & Others-SC-16.05.2018- Dispensation of criminal justice system- bar and the bench- cross examination- law   and   order- Unlawful assembly- S-141, 143, 149 IPC [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vishak Bhattacharya. Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors., W.P. 7326(W) of 2013, Judgment Dated: 01.06.2015, Bench: Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice & Ashim Kumar Banerjee, JJ, Calcutta High Court At Calcutta- Appointment of Parliament Secretaries-Legality, Validity & Justifiability Of Their Appointments- Issue, appointments of Parliamentary Secretaries in the State of West Bengal.- HC quashed the West Bengal Parliamentary Secretaries (Appointment, Salaries, Allowance and Miscellaneous Provision) Act of 2012, holding the same as ultra vires the Constitution of India [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Vishaka Vs State of Rajasthan-SC-13.08.1997- AIR 1997 (SC) 3011- [(1997) 6 SCC 241- Enforcement of the fundamental rights of working women under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India- Sexual Harassment [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vishnu Alias Undrya Vs. State Of Maharashtra- SC- 24.11.2005- SC-03.07.2015- POCSO- Age determination [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vishwa Mitter V. O. P. Poddar : Air 1984 Sc 5- Bail- Anticipatory Bail [Full PDF Judgment].  
    • Vishwanath   Maranna   Shetty [State   of   Maharashtra   Vs. Vishwanath   Maranna   Shetty]- (2012) 10 SCC 561- Bail in PMLA, ED, and Analogous Crimes- Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vitusah Oberoi Vs Court Of Its Own Motion, Criminal Appeal No.1234 Of 2007, Judgment Dated-02.01.2017, Bench-T.S. Thakur, CJI, & A.M. Khanwilkar- Contempt Of Court- Cognizance of- Mid Day- Justice Sabharwal's son [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Vivek Batra Vs. Union Of India And Others - Criminal Appeal No. 2491 Of 2014  - Sc - 18.10.2016 [Full PDF Judgment].
    • V. Krishnakumar Versus State Of Tamil Nadu & Ors- SC-01.07.2015- Civil Appeal No. 8065 Of 2009, Judgment Dated: 01.07.2015, Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar & S.A. Bobde, JJ, Supreme Court Of India- Consumer Laws- Medical Negligence-  Issue, cross Appeals preferred against the judgment of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NCDRC’) rendering a finding of medical negligence against the State of Tamil Nadu, its Government Hospital and two Government Doctors and awarding a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to V. Krishnakumar.- Held, "13. In the circumstances, we agree with the findings of the NCDRC that the respondents were negligent in their duty and were deficient in their services in not screening the child 12 Page 13 between 2 to 4 weeks after birth when it is mandatory to do so and especially since the child was under their care. Thus, the negligence began under the supervision of the Hospital i.e. Respondent No.2. The Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, who checked the baby at his private clinic and at the appellant’s home, respectively, were also negligent in not advising screening for ROP. It is pertinent to note that Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 carried on their own private practice while being in the employment of Respondent No. 2, which was a violation of their terms of service.- 25. Accordingly, we direct that the said amount i.e. Rs.1,38,00,000/- shall be paid, in the form of a Fixed Deposit, in the name of Sharanya. We are informed that the said amount would yield an approximate annual interest of Rs. 12,00,000/-." [Full PDF Judgment]
    • Voluntary Health Association Vs. Union Of India And Others - Writ Petition -Civil- No. 349 Of 2006 - SC-08.11.2016- Female Foeticide [Full PDF Judgment]
    • V. Sreeramachandra Avadhani (D) BY L.Rs. Versus Shaik Abdul Rahim & Anr., Civil Appeal No.2364 OF 2005, Judgment Dated: 21.08.2014, Bench: Jagdish Singh Khehar & Rohinton Fali Nariman, JJ, Supreme Court Of India: In This Case, the Court dealt with Muslim Law and the concept of Gift Deed [Full PDF Judgment].
    • Vyapam Case-Nidhi Kaim Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh- Civil Appeal No. 1727 OF 2016-SC-13.02.2017-(2017) 4 SCC 1 [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