Here is the Order of Supreme Court where in it has frame some guidelines for it to function through Video Conferencing during nCovid-19 pandemic and even after the lockdown which was supposed to end on 14 April 2020 but got extended upto 3 May 2020.
Here is the Record of Proceedings (ROP) for 06 April 2020
AP High Court has also taken up the issue of COVID-19 as a Writ Petition here.
Citations: [
Other Source links:
This Judgment by Justice Deepak Gupta from a 2-judge bench held in Para 18 that,
18. We also are of the view that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in matters like this. The High Court exercise its jurisdiction only over State(s) of which it is the High Court. It has no jurisdiction for the rest of the country. Matters like the present may be pending in various parts of the country. In the present case, matter had been decided by the Delhi High Court but some other High Court may or may not have taken different view. The High Court of Madras could not have passed such order. It has virtually usurped the jurisdiction of other High Courts in the country. It is true that sometimes this Court has ordered that all similarly situated employees may be granted similar relief but the High Court does not have the benefit of exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution. In any event, this Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire country whereas the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the State(s) of which it is the High Court. The High Court may be justified in passing such an order when it only affects the employees of the State falling within its jurisdiction but, in our opinion, it could not have passed such an order in the case of employees where pan India repercussions would be involved.
This effectively means that, to challenge a Central Act such as Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 which has ramifications to entire country, one can not invoke the Writ jurisdiction of a High Court. This implies that, one has to go to Supreme Court only. This is quite contrary to the obiter dicta from Kusum Ingots judgement here given by a 3-judge bench.
Citations: [
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95720998/ or
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Citations: [
Other Source links:
In this landmark decision from Supreme Court, seed for the following Police Reforms in India were sown by the Ex-DGP Uttar Pradesh Shri Prakash Singh ji.
Citations: [2006 JT 12 225], [2006 SCR SUPP 6 473], [2006 SCC CRI 3 417], [2006 SCALE 9 444], [2006 AIOL 639], [2006 SUPREME 8 470], [2006 SCC 8 1], [2011 SCC CRI 1 1023], [2006 KERLT 4 482], [2006 KLT 4 482]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1090328/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae2de4b0149711413181
Relying on Supreme Court judgment here, High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that,
It may be noticed that though the said judgment has been delivered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, yet the legal issue being the similar as is involved in the present case, we respectfully follow the said judgment.
pdf-embedder url=”https://www.shadesofknife.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Balbir-Singh-Vs-Baljinder-Kaur-on-28-March-2019.pdf” title=”Balbir Singh Vs Baljinder Kaur on 28 March, 2019″]
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Supreme Court has held that,
19. Taking note of the exposition of law on the subject laid down by this Court, it is settled that the Judge while considering the question of framing charge under Section 227 CrPC in sessions cases (which is akin to Section 239 CrPC pertaining to warrant cases) has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out; where the material placed before the Court discloses grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained, the Court will be fully justified in framing the charge; by and large if two views are possible and one of them giving rise to suspicion only, as distinguished from grave suspicion against the accused, the trial Judge will be justified in discharging him. It is thus clear that while examining the discharge application filed under Section 227 CrPC, it is expected from the trial Judge to exercise its judicial mind to determine as to whether a case for trial has been made out or not. It is true that in such proceedings, the Court is not supposed to hold a mini trial by marshalling the evidence on record.
Citations: [
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/33080905/ Earlier High Court order: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c4c63cb9eff4364f62e246c
Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Karnataka High Court has quashed this 498A IPC case on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband since the complaint is full of junk vague and non-specific allegations.
The Supreme Court had crushed another false DV case by this liar and quashed it on 11 of the accused relatives of the Husband here.
Citations: [
Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d4be4364a9326071f285522
The Index of these cases is here.
Here I list the landmark judgments from High Courts of India and Supreme Court of India.
1920-1925
1926-1930
1931-1935
1936-1940
1941-1945
1946-1950
1951-1955
1956-1960
1961-1965
1966-1970
1971-1975
1976-1980
1996-2000
2001-2005
2006-2010
2011-2015
2016-2020
MASTER SITEMAP here.
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org link:
Honorable Delhi High Court held that, “if any of the allegations are found to be patently false, the trial court shall take necessary steps to prosecute the concerned complainant to the full extent of law”
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org link:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Bad Behavior has blocked 1116 access attempts in the last 7 days.
