Home » Supreme Court Case Laws Monday, September 27, 2021

Supreme Court Case Laws Monday, September 27, 2021

Bail – death of the deceased had occurred by injecting him with ketamine, an anesthetic drug – the High Court was in error in allowing the application for bail. The consideration that twenty-five witnesses out of seventy-six witnesses had been examined must equally be weighed with the seriousness of the crime, the role attributed to the accused and the likelihood of the evidence being tampered with if the accused were to remain on bail during the course of the trial. In this backdrop, it was wholly inappropriate for the High Court to proceed on the surmise that the police had “developed a case” that Ketamine was administered, after four months of the incident. Mahadev Meena v. Praveen Rathore. https://caselaw.in/p=10071

BailClaim of Parity – Parity while granting bail must focus upon the role of the accused. Merely observing that another accused who was granted bail was armed with a similar weapon is not sufficient to determine whether a case for the grant of bail on the basis of parity has been established. In deciding the aspect of parity, the role attached to the accused, their position in relation to the incident and to the victims is of utmost importance. The High Court has proceeded on the basis of parity on a simplistic assessment as noted above, which again cannot pass muster under the law. Ramesh Bhavan Rathod v. Vishanbhai Hirabhai Makwana, (2021) 6 SCC 230 (Referred to) Mahadev Meena v. Praveen Rathore. https://caselaw.in/p=10071

BailClaim of Parity – Bail was granted to the co-accused primarily and substantially on the ground that she had a child of eleven months with her in jail. This cannot be the basis to a claim of parity on the part of the other accused. The accused cannot claim parity with the co-accused since the allegations in the FIR and the material that has emerged from the investigation indicate that a major role has been attributed to him in the murder of the deceased. Mahadev Meena v. Praveen Rathore. https://caselaw.in/p=10071

Criminal Law –  Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal Law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. https://caselaw.in/p=10061

Education – If imparting education is seen to be in public interest, such institutions have duties to their employees as well. State of Uttar Pradesh v. Principal Abhay Nandan Inter College https://caselaw.in/p=10348

Municipality – Market – The rights of the Council are to administer the properties as a delegate of the Government of India and not as an owner as there were no transfer of rights in the markets in favour of the Council. This is evident from the fact that the revenue generated from the transfer of markets has to be deposited in a separate corpus of funds to be utilized only for the purpose of development of markets and for no other purpose. Such income would not accrue to the Council as a part of their budget. Therefore, the markets transferred by the Government of India to the Council have to be dealt independently and separately than the properties owned by the Council as the Council has no title over such markets as it has been asked only to manage them on behalf of the Government of India. New Delhi Municipal Council v. Ganga Devi https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=166

Penal Code, 1860 – Ss. 406, 418, 420, 427, 447, 506 & 120B r/w. 34 – In the order issuing summons, the Magistrate has to record his satisfaction about a prima facie case against the accused who are Managing Director, the Company Secretary and the Directors of the Company and the role played by them in their respective capacities which is sine qua non for initiating criminal proceedings against them. Looking to the averments and the allegations in the complaint, there are no specific allegations and/or averments with respect to role played by them in their capacity as Chairman, Managing Director, Executive Director, Deputy General Manager and Planner & Executor. Merely because they are Chairman, Managing Director/Executive Director and/or Deputy General Manager and/or Planner/Supervisor of A1 & A6, without any specific role attributed and the role played by them in their capacity, they cannot be arrayed as an accused, more particularly they cannot be held vicariously liable for the offences committed by A1 & A6. Ravindranatha Bajpe v. Mangalore Special Economic Zone Ltd. https://caselaw.in/p=10061

Service Law – Resignation – A resignation in spite of its acceptance could be withdrawn before the effective date. Mere delay in relieving someone from their duties does not impact the acceptance of their resignation. New Victoria Mills v. Shrikant Arya https://pdf.caselaw.in/?p=181

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