Legal Update as on 19.04.2023

  1. If compensation that was deposited before December 31, 2014, is not paid to the majority, the RFCTLARR Act is applicable. – In cases of land acquisition under the National Highways Act of 1956, where agencies deposited compensation with the Competent Authority prior to December 31, 2014, but same was not paid to majority of land holders, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has noted that provisions of RFCTLARR Act, 2013 will apply.
    National Highways Authority of India vs. Modan Singh and others
  1. P&H HC: IT IS INEVITABLE TO CONVICT A DRIVER OF A MORAL TURPITUDE OFFENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF A MENS REA – The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that it would not be appropriate to convict that driver of a crime containing moral turpitude in the absence of mens rea, despite the fact that road accidents sometimes originate from human mistake, mechanical problems, or other vehicles’ fault.
    Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab and others
  1. CAL HC: S. 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not repealed by the 2016 repeal and amendment act. – According to the Calcutta High Court, the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947’s section 2A(2) was not repealed by the Repeal and Amendment Act of 2016, leaving the Labour Courts/Tribunals without jurisdiction.
    Krishnadas Bhattacharjee -Versus- The State of West Bengal & Ors.
  1. SC: DISALLOW CONVICTS IN TAKING ADVANTAGE OF DELAY BY DECIDING MERCY PETITIONS AT THE EARLIEST – In order to prevent the benefit of delay in not deciding mercy petitions accruing to the accused and to prevent the accused from taking advantage of such excessive delay, the Supreme Court has ordered all State Governments to ensure that mercy petitions in death penalty cases are determined and disposed of as soon as possible.
    The State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Renuka Shinde & Ors.
  1. NUMBER PARAGRAPHS IN ORDERS AND JUDGEMENTS, SC TO COURTS’ & HCS’ – The Supreme Court has advised all Courts and Tribunals to number the paragraphs in all orders and judgements after noting in SBI v. Ajay Kumar Sood (SC/1040/2022) that paragraph numbers in judgements are helpful for ease of reference and increasing readability & accessibility of judgements.
    BS Hari Commandant vs Union of India and others
  1. JKL HC: CANNOT INITIATE CONTEMPT TO PRESSURE PARTY SEEKING REMEDY AGAINST UNFAVOURABLE ORDER – The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that a party cannot be forced to seek relief against an unfavourable ruling by launching a contempt case, notwithstanding the fact that the right to pursue an adequate legal remedy cannot be interpreted as obstructing the administration of justice.
    Gull Mohammad Bhat Vs Raj Kumar Goyal and others
  1. Judges must express disagreement with a negative final report before taking cognizance, according to RAJ High Court. – According to the Rajasthan High Court, the Judicial Officer must express his disagreement with the Investigating Officer’s findings before taking cognizance of the offence and issuing the process in cases when a detailed negative final report has been submitted.
    Niraj Goyal & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Anr
  1. AP HC: POCSO DOES NOT REQUIRE EJACULATION TO PROVE PENETRATIVE SEXUAL ASSAULT – When affirming a conviction in a POCSO case, the Andhra Pradesh High Court noted that Section 3 of the POCSO Act only requires penetration, not ejaculation, to establish the crime of penetrative sexual assault.
    Miriyala Vajiram v. State of Andhra Pradesh
  1. DEL HC: EXPANDING VICIOUS LIABILITY BY MAKING CHAIRPERSONS LIABLE FOR CHEQUE DISHONOUR WOULD BE UNFAIR – In its decision to dismiss Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act’s check dishonour proceedings, the Delhi High Court noted that holding chairpersons accountable for checks issued in the regular course of business would unfairly and needlessly broaden the vicarious liability rules.
    Yashovardhan Birla vs Cecil Webber Engineering Ltd & Ors.
  1. SC: When framing charges, public prosecutors should exercise vigilance. – According to the Supreme Court, in addition to the Trial Court’s responsibility, even the public prosecutor has a responsibility to exercise diligence. If a suitable charge is not brought, it is his responsibility to ask the Court to do so.
    Soundarajan vs State

Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this blog post is for general information and educational purposes only. Nothing contained in this blog post should be construed as legal advice from The Aran Law Firm or the individual author, nor is it intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter.

Tags :

Share This:

Legal Updates