web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Work-In-Progress Article

Nandini Satpathy Vs PL Dani and Anr on 07 Apr 1978

Posted on January 16 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Nandini Satpathy Vs PL Dani and Anr on 07 Apr 1978

Citations :

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1938988/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abcce4b014971140d5d5

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge Bench Decision Article 20(3) of The Constitution of India Catena of Landmark Judgments CrPC 160 - Police officer’s Power to require Attendance of Witnesses CrPC 161 - Examination of Witnesses By Police Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

State of Haryana Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 15 Jan 2002

Posted on January 6 by ShadesOfKnife

Governments cannot be allowed to waste State Exchequer

It is an admitted fact that for construction of the Punjab portion of SYL Canal, more than Rs 560 crores have already been spent, as is apparent from Ext. P-13 and the entire money has been paid by the Government of India. It is indeed a matter of great concern that while huge amount of public exchequer has been spent in the construction of the canal and only a few portion of the canal within the territory of Punjab has not been dug, the canal is not being put to use on the mere insistence of the State of Punjab. The attitude of the State of Punjab to say the least, is wholly unreasonable, dogmatic and is against the national interest. It is equally a matter of great concern for this Court that the Central Government is taking an indifferent attitude in the matter and is only trying to while away the time, even though it continues to pay the State of Punjab substantially, even for the maintenance of the operation of canal that has already been dug.

and…

That apart, more than Rs 700 crores of public revenue cannot be allowed to be washed down the drain, when the entire portion of the canal within the territory of Haryana has already been completed and major portion of the said canal within the territory of Punjab also has been dug, leaving only minor patches within the said territory of Punjab to be completed.

Here is the casemine version

State of Haryana Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 15 Jan 2002 (Casemine)

Here is the Indiankanoon version

State of Haryana Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 15 Jan 2002

Citations : [2002 SCALE 1 238], [2002 AIR SC 303], [2002 SUPREME 1 14], [2002 SCC 2 507], [2002 AIR SC 685], [2002 AIR SCW 303]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/255258/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adaee4b0149711411f5b

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Landmark Case Misuse of Public Funds Reportable Judgement Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh State of Haryana Vs State of Punjab and Anr Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Rithvik Balanagraj B and Anr Vs BCI and Ors

Posted on December 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Two law students moved Karnataka High Court challenging BCI, KSLU decision to hold intermediate semester exams. Here is the Petition…

Rithvik Balanagraj B and Ors Vs BCI and Ors Petition

The Last status as on posting this message


Relevant News report: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/two-law-students-petition-karnataka-hc-circulars-bci-kslu-intermediate-semester-exams


Earlier News Report (wherein the PIL was dismissed): https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/law-students-move-karnataka-high-court-challenging-kslu-circular-for-holding-exams-165928

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Rithvik Balanagraj B and Ors Vs BCI and Ors Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

In Re To issues certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials

Posted on November 30, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

 

These are the recommendations prepared by Amicus curie in March 2020.

In Re To issues certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials

Supreme Court issued notices to all HCs and State Administrations to hear them and then pass Draft Rules.

Inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials on 27 Oct 2020

Next Hearing on 11-Dec-2020,

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged In Re To issues certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials Recommended Guidelines or Directions Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Jugal Vs State of Rajasthan on 25 Nov 2020

Posted on November 28, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Rajasthan High Court passed a direction to all trial Courts in Rajasthan that, in all Bail matters u/s 437/438,  a detailed report on antecedents of the accused is t be filed along with judgment.

There is no mention regarding the status of criminal antecedents of the present petitioner in the impugned order. It is often seen by this Court that the learned courts below are not specific in regard to antecedents of the accused persons, which causes delay in the disposal of the bail applications, as, if the person is not having antecedents and his antecedents are called, receiving of such antecedents reports takes quite some time. Though the antecedent alone is not a ground of rejecting or accepting a bail, but it is must that the Hon’ble High Court should have the antecedent report to check the applicability of Section 437 (1) of Cr.P.C. as well as to weigh the case of the accused person with overall perspective of the allegations levelled.

Thus, this Court directs that all learned trial courts shall, while allowing or disallowing any regular/anticipatory bail application of any accused person,give the complete details of the antecedents, if any, and also record that there are no antecedents of the accused person in case of none being there. If there are antecedents of the accused, then the complete details of the antecedents i.e. FIR Number(s) & Case Number(s), Section(s), date(s), status and date of arrest & release on any previous occasion, if any, in the chart form shall be prepared and incorporated in the learned trial courts’ order, while granting or dismissing the bail application.
This order shall be conveyed by the Registry of this Court to all learned District & Sessions Judges of the State, who shall ensure the immediate implementation of this order amongst all the judicial officers and all courts in their respective jurisdiction, which are hearing the bail applications. The detailed antecedents report in aforesaid format so provided in the trial courts’ order shall be the requirement of disposal of any bail application in State of Rajasthan. It is also directed that the learned Public Prosecutors all over the State shall call for the antecedents report well in advance in every case of bail, so as to enable the courts to have a definite and correct information regarding previous criminal antecedents of the accused. A certified copy of this order be also sent by the Registry to the Director of the Prosecution Department of the State for necessary compliance, amongst the learned Public Prosecutors all over the State of Rajasthan.
The Registry of this Hon’ble Court shall ensure compliance of this order, in its letter and spirit, and submit such compliance before this Court on 05.01.2021.

Jugal Vs State of Rajasthan on 25 Nov 2020
Posted in High Court of Rajasthan Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 439 - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail Directions Issued to be followed Jugal Vs State of Rajasthan Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

K.C. Kanniyappa Vs K.C. Lalitha and Anr on 26 Sep 2005

Posted on November 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single-judge bench of Andhra Pradesh held that, cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.

From Para 3,

3. Since O.S. No. 1141 of 2000, later renumbered as O.S. No. 20 of 2003, was ordered to be tried along with O.S. No. 47 of 1998, obviously common evidence is being recorded in both the suits. When two suits are clubbed and tried together, all the parties to the suits have a right to cross-examine the witness examined by the adversary, because Section 138 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (‘the Act’) confers such right on them. As per that Section 138 of the Act the witness called by a party shall first be examined-in-chief and if the adverse party so desires he can cross-examine him and then if the party calling him so desires, can re-examine him. That section specifically lays down that Chief examination and cross-examination must relate to relevant facts, but cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his examination-in-chief.

Casemine copy:

K.C. Kanniyappa Vs K.C. Lalitha and Anr on 26 Sep 2005 (casemine)

Legal Crystal copy:

K.C. Kanniyappa Vs K.C. Lalitha and Anr on 26 Sep 2005 (legalcrystal)

Citations : [2006 ALD 1 370], legalcrystal.com/442436

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1166172/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f85de4b01497111422e0

https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/442436/k-c-kanniyappa-vs-lalitha-anr

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Evidence Act Sec 138 - Cross-examination need not be confined to the facts to which the witness testified on his Examination-in-chief Evidence Act Sec 138 - Order of Examinations K.C. Kanniyappa Vs K.C. Lalitha and Anr Reportable Judgement Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 11 Nov 2020

Posted on November 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court granted interim bail to Arnab Goswami, after he suffered judicial custody for 7 days.

Here is the Order.

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 11 Nov 2020

Here is the Judgment with reasons.

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 27 Nov 2020

Index of Quash judgments here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors Article 226 of The Constitution of India Article 227 of The Constitution of India CrPC 439 - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail CrPC 482 - FIR Can Be Quashed Interim Bail Reportable Judgement Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

AP Suryakrasam Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors

Posted on November 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Madras observed that, punishment for corrupt practices should be increased to include death sentence also. Wonderful step!

From Para 11,

11. Though the learned Advocate General has referred to about the prevailing Act, namely, the Prevention of Corruption Act and its procedures, the menace of corruption has not come down. Prevention of Corruption Act is a Central Act, enacted by the Central Government as early as in the year 1947, followed by several amendments, with the latest amendment in the year 2018, giving elaborate procedures to be followed along with punishment and penalties. People are compelled to accept corruption as normal one. Corruption has become deep rooted and has spread like Cancer. Every day, it is reported in the media that many officials are caught red handed, while taking bribes. Hence, the punishment needs to be enhanced. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there should be a re-visit and the Act should be strengthened and stringent penalties should be imposed to curb the menace of corruption. The Central Government may consider imposing punishment, such as, “hanging” or “death penalty”, for corrupt practices or for demanding and accepting bribes, like in China, North Korea, Indonesia, Thailand and Morocco. Hence, this Court suo-motu impleads,
i) the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, North Block, New Delhi;
ii) the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Law and Justice, Union of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi; and
iii) the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, Union of India, Parliament House, New Delhi
as party respondents / respondents 5 to 7 to this proceedings.

AP Suryakrasam Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors on 02 Nov 2020

 

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged AP Suryakrasam Vs State of Tamil Nadu and Ors Corrupt Practices Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Withdrawing ‘General Consent’ Granted To CBI To Investigate Cases In The State

Posted on November 5, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The following is a table listing granting and withdrawing of their ‘General Consent’ Granted To CBI To Investigate Cases In The State.

Some State governments innocently think by withdrawing ‘General Consent’ Granted To CBI To Investigate Cases In The State, they can stop CBI. Fools !!! Here why.

State / Union Territory Consent Granted on Consent Withdrawn on
Andhra Pradesh 3 Aug 2018

6 Jun 2019

16 Nov 2018 (Confidential GO)

—

Arunachal Pradesh
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh 2001 10 Jan 2019
Goa
Gujarat
Haryana
Himachal Pradesh
Jharkhand
5 Nov 2020
Karnataka
Kerala 4 Nov 2020
Madhya Pradesh
Maharashtra 21 Oct 2020
Manipur
Meghalaya
Mizoram
Nagaland
Odisha
Punjab 6 Nov 2020
Rajasthan 19 Sep 2020
Sikkim
Tamil Nadu
Telangana
Tripura
Uttar Pradesh
Uttarakhand
West Bengal
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Chandigarh
Dadra Nagar Haveli and Daman Diu
Delhi
Jammu and Kashmir
Ladakh
Lakshadweep
Puducherry

 


On 6 Jun 2019, Andhra Pradesh granted General Consent.

03082018HO_MS109

*****

On 16 Nov 2018, Andhra Pradesh withdrew General Consent.

(Via Confidential GO and a Gazette notification)

2018-11-20 Withdrawal of General consent given to the members of CBI Gaz

*****

On 3 Aug 2018, Andhra Pradesh granted General Consent.

2018-08-03 03082018HO_MS109 General consent given to the members of CBI

 

 

 

*****

On 5 Dec 2017, Andhra Pradesh granted General Consent.

2017-12-05 2017HO_MS184 General consent given to the members of CBI

On 10 Jan 2019, Chattisgarh withdrew General Consent.

2019-01-10 Chattishgarh withdraws General Consent

 

On 5 Nov 2020, Jharkhand withdrew General Consent.

Jharkhand withdraws General Consent

On 4 Nov 2020, Kerala withdrew General Consent.

2020-11-04 Kerala withdraws General Consent

On 21 Oct 2020, Maharashtra withdrew General Consent.

2020-10-21 Maharashtra withdraws General Consent

On 19 Sep 2020, Rajasthan withdrew General Consent.

2020-07-19 Rajasthan withdraws General Consent

 

 


On 6 Nov 2020, Punjab withdrew General Consent.

Final_Gazette_Report
Posted in LLB Study Material | Tagged Withdrawing 'General Consent' Granted To CBI To Investigate Cases In The State Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Regular Bail Orders u/s 437

Posted on November 1, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Section 437 of CrPC from Chapter CHAPTER XXXIII has the provision for getting Regular Bail in non-bailable cases.


Index of all Bail matters is here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Regular Bail Orders u/s 437 Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Chekka Guru Murali Mohan and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 19 Jan 2021 January 23, 2021
  • AP State Election Commission Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh January 21, 2021
  • Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs AP State Election Commission on 11 Jan 2021 January 21, 2021
  • Change the Advocate January 21, 2021
  • Decisions of High Courts to be made applicable in Other High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India January 21, 2021

Most Read Posts

  • All Reliefs from Judiciary (821 views)
  • Hindu Personal Code Laws (597 views)
  • Future Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India (572 views)
  • Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 06 August 2020 (547 views)
  • All Protection from Police High-handedness (487 views)
  • Exemption from Personal Appearance (u/s 205 CrPC) in Court Judgments (486 views)
  • Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (413 views)
  • State of Kerala Vs Rasheed on 30 October 2018 (409 views)
  • Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs Union of India on 18 August 2020 (373 views)
  • All Bail Judgments (319 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained (216)Landmark Case (210)Work-In-Progress Article (187)Reportable Judgement (164)Catena of Landmark Judgments (120)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (97)Sandeep Pamarati (81)Article 21 of The Constitution of India (61)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (46)Summary Post (46)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (43)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (43)3-Judge Bench Decision (37)1-Judge Bench Decision (36)IPC 498a Not Made Out (32)CrPC 482 - Quash (32)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (32)PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted (31)PIL - CrPC 125 Must Go From Statute Book (28)LLB Subjects and Previous Year Exam Papers and Answers (27)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (491)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (249)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (131)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (82)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (75)General Study Material (53)Prakasam DV Cases (46)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (44)LLB Study Material (44)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (40)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (35)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (34)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (32)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (27)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (21)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (13)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (11)Chittor DV Cases (11)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • muralidhar Rao Sirangi on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • ShadesOfKnife on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • anuj on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • January 2021 (42)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (29)
  • August 2020 (42)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (36)
  • December 2019 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (74)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (102)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Cloudflare Logs Delays January 23, 2021
    Jan 23, 03:29 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jan 22, 20:06 UTCMonitoring - Cloudflare has implemented a fix for this issue and is currently monitoring the results. We will update the status once the issue is resolved.Jan 22, 20:06 UTCIdentified - Cloudflare has identified the issue and is implementing a fix. We will update […]
  • DNS Service Issues January 22, 2021
    Jan 22, 05:00 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jan 22, 04:50 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Jan 22, 03:43 UTCIdentified - The issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented.Jan 22, 03:26 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is aware of an issue with the performance of DNS […]
  • Cloudflare Billing Issues January 20, 2021
    Jan 20, 13:11 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jan 20, 13:01 UTCUpdate - Cloudflare has resolved the issue affecting the ordering platform. At this time transactions should be processing normally for existing customers and new customer signups.Jan 20, 12:59 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Jan 20, 12:50 […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 87.202.21.152 | SC January 22, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 23 | First: 2008-09-08 | Last: 2021-01-13
  • 36.67.51.186 | SDC January 22, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 108 | First: 2018-10-21 | Last: 2021-01-15
  • 180.121.135.91 | SC January 22, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 13 | First: 2017-09-22 | Last: 2021-01-14
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC
pixel