muralimohan - Tumblr blog

[muralimohan]

whether culpable homicide amounting to murder

whether culpable homicide amounting to murder

whether culpable homicide amounting to murder  as per Section 300 IPC, if the case falls within Clauses thirdly and fourthly to Section 300 IPC, culpable homicide can be said to be amounting to murder. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the High Court has committed a grave error in observing that culpable homicide did not amount to murder, by applying exception Fourth to…

[muralimohan]

A WILL EXECUTED AFTER 1956 WITH LIMITED RIGHTS - THEN THE  WILL FALSS  UNDER SEC.14[2] OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - THEREFORE NO ABSOLUTE RIGHTS CONFERRED ON DONEE - THEREFORE HER DAUGHTER CAN NOT ALIENATE THE SAME NOR GET ANY COLLUSIVE DECREE. THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF BONAFIDE PURCHASED DID NOT ARISE

A WILL EXECUTED AFTER 1956 WITH LIMITED RIGHTS – THEN THE  WILL FALSS  UNDER SEC.14[2] OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT – THEREFORE NO ABSOLUTE RIGHTS CONFERRED ON DONEE – THEREFORE HER DAUGHTER CAN NOT ALIENATE THE SAME NOR GET ANY COLLUSIVE DECREE. THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF BONAFIDE PURCHASED DID NOT ARISE

A WILL EXECUTED AFTER 1956 WITH LIMITED RIGHTS – THEN THE  WILL FALSS  UNDER SEC.14[2] OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT – THEREFORE NO ABSOLUTE RIGHTS CONFERRED ON DONEE – THEREFORE HER DAUGHTER CAN NOT ALIENATE THE SAME NOR GET ANY COLLUSIVE DECREE. THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF BONAFIDE PURCHASED DID NOT ARISE Will dated 15.4.1968 by one Tulsi Ram, who passed away on 17.11.1969 -. The Will aforesaid…

[muralimohan]

When police failed to prove that 12 bore gun was not used nor fired at the police party - the story of the prosecution stood as untrue - as no independent witenss speaks the same even though avaialble - Hence the conviction based on presumption not maintainable .

When police failed to prove that 12 bore gun was not used nor fired at the police party – the story of the prosecution stood as untrue – as no independent witenss speaks the same even though avaialble – Hence the conviction based on presumption not maintainable .

When police failed to prove that 12 bore gun was not used nor fired at the police party – the story of the prosecution stood as untrue – as no independent witenss speaks the same even though avaialble – Hence the conviction based on presumption not maintainable . The   police   parties   were   deputed   in   different   directions   and warning to surrender was given to Rajesh Shukla.  On such…

[muralimohan]

whether the accused should be tried by a court-martial or in the alternative, should be proceeded with before the ordinary criminal court.

whether the accused should be tried by a court-martial or in the alternative, should be proceeded with before the ordinary criminal court.

whether the accused should be tried by a court-martial or in the alternative, should be proceeded with before the ordinary criminal court.  Whether ordinary criminal court and  a court-martial under the Army Act – Section 69 of the Army Act is reproduced below:  “Subject to the provisions of section 70, any person subject to this Act who at any place in or beyond India, commits any civil…

[muralimohan]

Whether the Lokadalat Award in land acquisation case be tread as a decree for the purpose of Sec.28 A of Land acquisition Act ?

Whether the Lokadalat Award in land acquisation case be tread as a decree for the purpose of Sec.28 A of Land acquisition Act ?

Whether the Lokadalat Award in land acquisation case be tread as a decree for the purpose of Sec.28 A of Land acquisition Act ? – Since Lok Adalat Award is not that of Land acquisition Tribunal Award on merties or on comprimise as per CPC , no claim be accepted under Sec.28 A of Land Acquistion Act basing on Lok Adalat Award. But Times of India Caption Lok Adalats are not courts, their…

[muralimohan]

Motor Accident Claims = multiplier as “11”= the petitioners shall be entitled to enhancement of compensation by fixing the multiplier as “11”. ; consortium =The widow shall be entitled for loss of consortium to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and the children together are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love, care, guidance and protection.;interest = interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of filing of the claim petition.; “future prospects”= the claimants are entitled to an addition of 15% towards future prospects.

Motor Accident Claims = multiplier as “11”= the petitioners shall be entitled to enhancement of compensation by fixing the multiplier as “11”. ; consortium =The widow shall be entitled for loss of consortium to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/- and the children together are entitled to compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of love, care, guidance and protection.;interest = interest at the rate of 9 per cent from the date of filing of the claim petition.; “future prospects”= the claimants are entitled to an addition of 15% towards future prospects.

  NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 20882 OF 2017 [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NOS. 1636/2016] BHOGIREDDI VARALAKSHMI & ORS. APPELLANT(S) VERSUS MANI MUTHUPANDI & ORS. RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J. Leave granted. 2. On 03.03.2017, this Court passed the following order:- 1. Aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation awarded…

[muralimohan]

Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Drugs Act”). = A Section 33 ban, which was imposed on 294 FDCs in these cases, has been stayed by the Madras High Court, and the very exercise that we have proposed in the Delhi cases has apparently been carried out in this group of cases. A report of the expert committee of the DTAB to review the rationality and safety of 294 FDCs is taken on record. The report indicates that 42 FDCs reportedly were repeated or duplicate; 44 were already prohibited for manufacture in the country; 83 were considered rational; 56 were considered not rational; 49 required further generation of data; 17 were considered inadequate so far as rationality, safety and efficacy is concerned; and 3 other cases were sent for further examination by an expert committee constituted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The DTAB after review of the report and deliberations recommended that the FDC Ofloxacin and Prednisolone at serial number 75 under the category of GI in Annexure C does not appear to be rational 53 and should be re-examined. The list of the drugs mentioned in Annexure D are required to be prohibited/withdrawn from the market as these are not rational.

Section 26A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (hereinafter referred to as “the Drugs Act”). = A Section 33 ban, which was imposed on 294 FDCs in these cases, has been stayed by the Madras High Court, and the very exercise that we have proposed in the Delhi cases has apparently been carried out in this group of cases. A report of the expert committee of the DTAB to review the rationality and safety of 294 FDCs is taken on record. The report indicates that 42 FDCs reportedly were repeated or duplicate; 44 were already prohibited for manufacture in the country; 83 were considered rational; 56 were considered not rational; 49 required further generation of data; 17 were considered inadequate so far as rationality, safety and efficacy is concerned; and 3 other cases were sent for further examination by an expert committee constituted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. The DTAB after review of the report and deliberations recommended that the FDC Ofloxacin and Prednisolone at serial number 75 under the category of GI in Annexure C does not appear to be rational 53 and should be re-examined. The list of the drugs mentioned in Annexure D are required to be prohibited/withdrawn from the market as these are not rational.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 22972 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.7061 OF 2017 UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. …APPELLANTS VERSUS PFIZER LIMITED AND ORS. …RESPONDENTS WITH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 22973-22981 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.10170-10178 OF 2017) CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 22982-23404 OF 2017 (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO.28960-29382 OF…

[muralimohan]

application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 and the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. = firstly, the suit is still at the initial stage, i.e., the trial has not yet begun; Second, the proposed amendment sought in the plaint does not change the nature of suit; Third, the applications could not be said to have been filed by the plaintiff belatedly because the suit had been dismissed by the Trial Court as not maintainable in its initial stages and for all these years it was sub judice in appeal. It is only after the Appellate court remanded the case to the Trial Court for its trial, the appellant (plaintiff) filed the applications in the suit and sought permission to amend the plaint and file certain documents in support thereof; Fourth, the Courts, in these circumstances, should have been liberal in allowing the proposed amendment.- So far as the filing of documents is concerned, this application too should have been allowed on the same grounds on which we have allowed the amendment application. In other words, when the suit is still at its initial stage and the trial is yet to begin and when the documents filed are alleged to be that of the respondents themselves having obtained through RTI, there is no reason why the appellant(plaintiff) be not allowed to file them.

application filed under Order 7 Rule 14 and the application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code. = firstly, the suit is still at the initial stage, i.e., the trial has not yet begun; Second, the proposed amendment sought in the plaint does not change the nature of suit; Third, the applications could not be said to have been filed by the plaintiff belatedly because the suit had been dismissed by the Trial Court as not maintainable in its initial stages and for all these years it was sub judice in appeal. It is only after the Appellate court remanded the case to the Trial Court for its trial, the appellant (plaintiff) filed the applications in the suit and sought permission to amend the plaint and file certain documents in support thereof; Fourth, the Courts, in these circumstances, should have been liberal in allowing the proposed amendment.- So far as the filing of documents is concerned, this application too should have been allowed on the same grounds on which we have allowed the amendment application. In other words, when the suit is still at its initial stage and the trial is yet to begin and when the documents filed are alleged to be that of the respondents themselves having obtained through RTI, there is no reason why the appellant(plaintiff) be not allowed to file them.

[muralimohan]

Election petition - striking of pleadings and rejection = whether material facts and cause of action have been pleaded in the subject election petition necessitating a trial; and, third, whether the election petition as filed deserved to be rejected in limine without conducting a trialthe High Court has overlooked the cause of action stated in the election petition, which arose from the 14 fact that two different sets of nomination forms and affidavits were filed by respondent No.1 containing several material deficiencies and discrepancies and which was fatal. In other words, the nomination form of respondent No.1 was wrongly accepted and it materially affected the election results of the appellant.

Election petition – striking of pleadings and rejection = whether material facts and cause of action have been pleaded in the subject election petition necessitating a trial; and, third, whether the election petition as filed deserved to be rejected in limine without conducting a trialthe High Court has overlooked the cause of action stated in the election petition, which arose from the 14 fact that two different sets of nomination forms and affidavits were filed by respondent No.1 containing several material deficiencies and discrepancies and which was fatal. In other words, the nomination form of respondent No.1 was wrongly accepted and it materially affected the election results of the appellant.

[muralimohan]

whether the Division Bench was right in dismissing the appeals “as not pressed”. = In our opinion, neither there was any express prayer made by the MUDA and nor it could be inferred from the document relied on by the Division Bench at the instance of respondents (writ petitioners) for forming an opinion “not to press the appeal”. In other words, the opinion formed by the High Court for dismissing the appeals “as not pressed” had no basis. Such dismissal, in our view, certainly deprived the MUDA of their right to prosecute the appeals on merits.

whether the Division Bench was right in dismissing the appeals “as not pressed”. = In our opinion, neither there was any express prayer made by the MUDA and nor it could be inferred from the document relied on by the Division Bench at the instance of respondents (writ petitioners) for forming an opinion “not to press the appeal”. In other words, the opinion formed by the High Court for dismissing the appeals “as not pressed” had no basis. Such dismissal, in our view, certainly deprived the MUDA of their right to prosecute the appeals on merits.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9182­9188 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.24560­24566 of 2018) (D.No.31403 of 2017) Mysore Urban Development Authority ….Appellant(s) VERSUS K.M. Chikkathayamma & Ors. ….Respondent(s) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.9190­9191 OF 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.24569­24570 of 2018) (D.No.30522 of 2017) J U D G M E N…

[muralimohan]

"Witness Protection Scheme, 2018

“Witness Protection Scheme, 2018

Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Abdul Nazeer Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arjan Kumar Sikri “Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 a Land mark Judgment of Apex court to safe guard the rights and safety of the witness . The Apex court framed the scheme and order its application till the Law is passed to that effect. Gave valuable directions as follows :- We, accordingly, direct that : (i)…

[muralimohan]

https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2020/04/whether-any-relief-can-be-granted-to.html

whether any relief can be granted to the appellant in this appeal. – provided temporary accomadation over the disputed property till she established her title over it and subject to the result of the suit in the family court or suitable forum as the respondent No.8 her husband accepted for accomdation of her.whether any relief can be granted to the appellant in this appeal. – provided temporary…

[muralimohan]

when the court found the prima faice case in the earlier bail applications - a stray sentence in the examination of material wintess deceased wife- can not change the circumstances and as such no bail be grated on that account alone.

when the court found the prima faice case in the earlier bail applications – a stray sentence in the examination of material wintess deceased wife- can not change the circumstances and as such no bail be grated on that account alone.

https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2021/07/when-court-found-prima-faice-case-in.html

[muralimohan]

One is required to consider the entire evidence as a whole with the other evidence on record. Mere one sentence here or there and that too to the question asked by the defence in the cross-examination cannot be considered stand alone. Even otherwise it is to be noted that what is stated by the Doctor/Medical officer can at the most be said to be his opinion. He is not the eye-witness to the incident. PW1 15 & PW2 have categorically stated that the other accused inflicted the blows by knives. The same is supported by the medical evidence and the deposition of PW2. Injuries nos. 2 to 8 are sufficient by the sharp cutting weapon. Injuries nos. 2 to 8 are on different parts of the body which show the intention and conduct on the part of the other accused A2 & A3. Therefore, they are rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC.

One is required to consider the entire evidence as a whole with the other evidence on record. Mere one sentence here or there and that too to the question asked by the defence in the cross-examination cannot be considered stand alone. Even otherwise it is to be noted that what is stated by the Doctor/Medical officer can at the most be said to be his opinion. He is not the eye-witness to the incident. PW1 15 & PW2 have categorically stated that the other accused inflicted the blows by knives. The same is supported by the medical evidence and the deposition of PW2. Injuries nos. 2 to 8 are sufficient by the sharp cutting weapon. Injuries nos. 2 to 8 are on different parts of the body which show the intention and conduct on the part of the other accused A2 & A3. Therefore, they are rightly convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC with the aid of Section 34 IPC.

https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2021/07/one-is-required-to-consider-entire.html

[muralimohan]

whether the the Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. employees are entitled to pay scale equivalent to their counterparts in the State of Punjab from 1.1.1986, though the revised pay scale was allowed by the Federation w.e.f. 1.1.1994.

whether the the Punjab State Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Ltd. employees are entitled to pay scale equivalent to their counterparts in the State of Punjab from 1.1.1986, though the revised pay scale was allowed by the Federation w.e.f. 1.1.1994.

https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2021/07/whether-the-punjab-state-co-operative.html

[muralimohan]

We have penned down our views on the issues raised by the petitioners, but in view of the elaborate arguments and length of the [179] judgment, we consider it appropriate to summarise the ratio/directions in the following terms: I. There is no dispute about the right of the Assembly or the Committee to proceed on grounds of breach of privilege per se. II. The power to compel attendance by initiating privilege proceedings is an essential power. III. Members and non-Members (like the petitioners) can equally be directed to appear before the Committee and depose on oath. IV. In the given facts of the case, the issue of privileges is premature. Having said that, the insertion of para 4(vii) of the Terms of Reference taken along with the press conference of the Chairman of the Committee could legitimately give rise to apprehensions in the mind of the petitioners on account of which a caveat has been made. V. Canvassing a clash between privilege powers and certain fundamental rights is also preemptory in the present case. VI. In any case, the larger issue of privileges vis-a-vis the right of free speech, silence, and privacy in the context of Part III of the Constitution is still at large in view of the reference to the larger Bench in N. Ravi.149 149 Supra note 46. [180] VII. The Assembly admittedly does not have any power to legislate on aspects of law and order and police in view of Entries 1 and 2 of List II in the Seventh Schedule inter alia being excluded. Further, regulation of intermediaries is also subject matter covered by the I.T. Act. VIII. The Assembly does not only perform the function of legislating; there are many other aspects of governance which can form part of the essential functions of the Legislative Assembly and consequently the Committee. In the larger context, the concept of peace and harmony goes much beyond law and order and police, more so in view of onthe-ground governance being in the hands of the Delhi Government. IX. Para 4(vii) of the Terms of Reference does not survive for any opinion of the Committee. It will not be permissible for the Committee to encroach upon any aspects strictly within the domain of Entries 1 and 2 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. As such, any representative of the petitioners would have the right to not answer questions directly covered by these two fields. [181] 229. That brings us to the end of this saga. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, subject to terms aforesaid.

We have penned down our views on the issues raised by the petitioners, but in view of the elaborate arguments and length of the [179] judgment, we consider it appropriate to summarise the ratio/directions in the following terms: I. There is no dispute about the right of the Assembly or the Committee to proceed on grounds of breach of privilege per se. II. The power to compel attendance by initiating privilege proceedings is an essential power. III. Members and non-Members (like the petitioners) can equally be directed to appear before the Committee and depose on oath. IV. In the given facts of the case, the issue of privileges is premature. Having said that, the insertion of para 4(vii) of the Terms of Reference taken along with the press conference of the Chairman of the Committee could legitimately give rise to apprehensions in the mind of the petitioners on account of which a caveat has been made. V. Canvassing a clash between privilege powers and certain fundamental rights is also preemptory in the present case. VI. In any case, the larger issue of privileges vis-a-vis the right of free speech, silence, and privacy in the context of Part III of the Constitution is still at large in view of the reference to the larger Bench in N. Ravi.149 149 Supra note 46. [180] VII. The Assembly admittedly does not have any power to legislate on aspects of law and order and police in view of Entries 1 and 2 of List II in the Seventh Schedule inter alia being excluded. Further, regulation of intermediaries is also subject matter covered by the I.T. Act. VIII. The Assembly does not only perform the function of legislating; there are many other aspects of governance which can form part of the essential functions of the Legislative Assembly and consequently the Committee. In the larger context, the concept of peace and harmony goes much beyond law and order and police, more so in view of onthe-ground governance being in the hands of the Delhi Government. IX. Para 4(vii) of the Terms of Reference does not survive for any opinion of the Committee. It will not be permissible for the Committee to encroach upon any aspects strictly within the domain of Entries 1 and 2 of List II of the Seventh Schedule. As such, any representative of the petitioners would have the right to not answer questions directly covered by these two fields. [181] 229. That brings us to the end of this saga. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed, subject to terms aforesaid.

https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2021/07/we-have-penned-down-our-views-on-issues.html

[muralimohan]

in the field of Pharmacy Education and more particularly so far as the recognition of degrees and diplomas of Pharmacy 4 Education is concerned, the Pharmacy Act, 1948 shall prevail. The norms and regulations set by the PCI and other specified authorities under the Pharmacy Act would have to be followed by the concerned institutions imparting education for degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy, including the norms and regulations with respect to increase and/or decrease in intake capacity of the students and the decisions of the PCI shall only be followed by the institutions imparting degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy. The questions are answered accordingly.”

in the field of Pharmacy Education and more particularly so far as the recognition of degrees and diplomas of Pharmacy 4 Education is concerned, the Pharmacy Act, 1948 shall prevail. The norms and regulations set by the PCI and other specified authorities under the Pharmacy Act would have to be followed by the concerned institutions imparting education for degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy, including the norms and regulations with respect to increase and/or decrease in intake capacity of the students and the decisions of the PCI shall only be followed by the institutions imparting degrees and diplomas in Pharmacy. The questions are answered accordingly.”

https://freelegalconsultancy.blogspot.com/2021/07/in-field-of-pharmacy-education-and-more.html