— Art. and Pt. III — Bail — Power of constitutional courts to grant — Scope of: Restrictive bail provision in special statute like S. 43-D(5) UAPA, held, does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Pt. III of the Constitution, [Sk. Javed Iqbal v. State of U.P., ]
Education Law — Employment and Service Matters re Educational Institutions — Appointment/Recruitment — Eligibility conditions/criteria — Issue of equivalence — Judicial review — Scope: Judicial review can neither expand ambit of prescribed qualifications nor decide equivalence of prescribed qualifications with other qualification. Equivalence of qualification, is matter for State, as recruiting authority to determine, [Shifana P.S. v. State of Kerala, ]
— S. — “Purchase price” — Scope of: It is not only exclusive but exhaustive as well. It can rather be said to be enumerative and exhaustive. Use of the word “means” denotes the intention of the legislature to restrict the scope of the “purchase price” to the categories enumerated in the definition itself, [State of Gujarat v. Ambuja Cement Ltd., ]
— S. — Fatal accident: Enhancement of compensation, when warranted, explained, [Rojalini Nayak v. Ajit Sahoo, ]
— S. r/w Ss. , , and — Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty: Ingredients of assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty, explained. S. 353 contrasted with S. 186. Law clarified on effect of non-framing of charge under S. 186, [Mahendra Kumar Sonker v. State of M.P., ]
— S. r/w Ss. , Expln. 2 proviso and 506 — Discharge — Consensual relationship between the appellant and prosecutrix — Whether established: Principles re-clarified re matters to be considered under S. 375 Expln. 2 and S. 90 and to determine whether consent was vitiated by misconception of fact arising out of false promise to marry, [Shiv Pratap Singh Rana v. State of M.P., ]
— S. — Suit for recovery against a sick industrial company — Maintainability: Law summarised on maintainability of suit for recovery against a sick industrial company, when debt sought to be proved in plaint not admitted by the sick industrial company and conditions for suspension of proceedings, [Fertilizer Corpn. of India Ltd. v. Coromandal Sacks (P) Ltd., ]
— S. — Phrase “inform him of the grounds for such arrest” in S. 43-B(1) UAPA and S. 19(1) PMLA — Interpretation of: Interpretation given to the said phrase in S. 19(1) PMLA in Pankaj Bansal, , held, is to be applied to accused arrested under UAPA i.e. the accused must be supplied the grounds of arrest in writing in every case, without exception, at the earliest. Held, there is no significant difference in the language employed in S. 19(1) PMLA and S. 43-B(1) UAPA to take a view that the abovesaid interpretation of the phrase “inform him of the grounds for such arrest” in S. 19(1) PMLA, should not be applied to an accused arrested under UAPA, [Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), ]
The post appeared first on .