Home » Case Law Daily September 2021 Part 3

Case Law Daily September 2021 Part 3

Bail – It is the Constitutional duty of the Court to ensure that there is no arbitrary deprivation of personal liberty in the face of excess of State power. Bail is the rule and jail is the exception, and Courts must exercise their jurisdiction to uphold the tenets of personal liberty, subject to rightful regulation of the same by validly enacted legislation – Courts need to be alive to both ends of the spectrum, i.e. the duty of the Courts to ensure proper enforcement of criminal law, and the duty of the Courts to ensure that the law does not become a tool for targeted harassment. [Para 40] SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J. Mohd Arif v. State [Delhi High Court, 3 September, 2021]

Citizenship (Amendment) Act , 2019 (CAA) – Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 186, 353, 332, 323, 147, 148, 149, 336, 427, 302 – Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (PDPP Act) – Ss. 3/4 – The Petitioner was arrested on 11.03.2020 and has been in judicial custody since then. It has been 17 months since the arrest of the Petitioner. Bail jurisprudence attempts to bridge the gap between the personal liberty of an accused and ensuring social security remains intact. It is the intricate balance between the securing the personal liberty of an individual and ensuring that this liberty does not lead to an eventual disturbance of public order. It is egregious and against the principles enshrined in our Constitution to allow an accused to remain languishing behind bars during the pendency of the trial. Therefore, the Court, while deciding an application for grant of bail, must traverse this intricate path very carefully and thus take multiple factors into consideration before arriving at a reasoned order whereby it grants or rejects bail. [Para 38] SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J. Mohd Arif v. State [Delhi High Court, 3 September, 2021]

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 – The allegation against the petitioner as levelled in the complaint is about use of “Sildenafil Citrate” drug in the preparation and manufacturing of Ayurvedic drug for which the petitioner is stated to be holding a licence thereof and the petitioner thus, being holding the said licence for manufacture of Ayurvedic drug claims that he ought to have been proceeded against under Chapter IV- A instead of Chapter IV of the Act even though the allegation of use of “Sildenafil Citrate” drug therein the Ayurvedic Drug is alleged. JAVED IQBAL WANI, J. Dr. Shipra Bansal v. Drug Inspector [Jammu & Kashmir High Court, 3 September, 2021]

Evidence Act, 1872 – S. 113A – Whenever the act provides that the Court may presume a fact, the said fact is to be regarded as proved, unless and until it is disproved. S. ABDUL NAZEER; KRISHNA MURARI, JJ. Gumansinh @ Lalo @ Raju Bhikhabhai Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [Supreme Court of India, 3 September, 2021]

Mental / Martial Cruelty – A decree for divorce can be granted on the ground of cruelty, however, the word ‘cruelty’ has not been defined under the Act, 1955, therefore, the question as to what act or omission or conduct or behavior of a party to a marriage would constitute cruelty has to be understood in the facts and circumstances of each case. PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, AG. CJ.; RAJANI DUBEY, J. Shripal Meshram v. Urmila Meshram [Chattisgarh High Court, 3 September, 2021]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Ss. 39 & 40 – Necessity for Registration – Registration, where to be made – Registration of vehicles belonging to the Central Government – Using vehicles without registration – No exception having been provided to any class of vehicle except to a motor vehicle in possession of a dealer and a vehicle belonging to the Central Government which is being used for Government purpose relating to defence of the country, no other category of vehicle can claim exemption from registration under the M.V. Act. SANJAY KAROL, CJ; PARTHA SARTHY, JNirbhay Prashant, Advocate v. State of Bihar [Patna High Court, 3 September, 2021]

Service Law – Once an appointee have gone through the process of selection provided under the scheme / Act regardless of the fact whether the post is temporary or permanent in nature, at least their appointment is substantive in character and could be made permanent as and when the post is permanently sanctioned by the competent authority. UDAY UMESH LALIT; AJAY RASTOGI, JJ. Somesh Thapliyal v. Vice Chancellor [Supreme Court of India, 3 September, 2021]

Transfer of Property Act 1882 – Ss. 111 (g) & 112 – Determination of Lease – Waiver of forfeiture – lessee has executed an absolute sale deed in respect of the leased land which belongs to the government – such breach cannot be condoned. HEMANT GUPTA; A.S. BOPANNA, JJ. State of Kerala v. Joseph & Company [Supreme Court of India, 3 September , 2021]

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]