Important Judgments – June 2017

  1. The Supreme Court, in State of UP vs. Sunil, has held that any person can be directed to give his foot-prints for corroboration of evidence but the same cannot be considered as violation of the protection guaranteed under Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950. It may, however, be noted that non-compliance of such direction of the Court may lead to adverse inference, nevertheless, the same cannot be entertained as the sole basis of conviction. [LNIND 2017 SC 244] Read more
  2. The Supreme Court, in Mukesh and Another vs. State for NCT of Delhi and Others (Nirbhaya Case), has held that the present case clearly comes within the category of ‘rarest of rare case’ where the question of any other punishment is ‘unquestionably foreclosed’ and the High Court has correctly confirmed the death penalty and this Court sees no reason to differ with the same. [(2017) 2 MLJ (Crl) 480 (SC) : LNIND 2017 SC 252] Read more
  3. The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, in Kalaichelvan @ Dhanush K. Raja vs. R. Kathiresan and Another (Actor Dhanush Case), has held that the prayer of the Kathiresan couple for DNA profiling to be done on Actor Dhanush cannot be entertained in the absence of making out a prima facie case from their own pleadings and documents submitted before the Trial Court as well as this Court. [(2017) 2 MLJ (Crl) 498 : LNINDORD 2017 BMM 127] Read more
  4. The Supreme Court of India, in Formula One World Championship Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, has held that though there is an obligation to deduct tax, the obligation is limited to the appropriate portion of income which is chargeable to tax in India and in respect of other payments where no tax is payable, recourse is to be made under Section 195(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. [(2017) 4 MLJ 405 (SC) : LNIND 2017 SC 227] Read more
  5. The Supreme Court of India, in Seeni Nainar Mohammed and Another vs. State, Rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, has held that the most important factor for determination before the Sanctioning Authority was that the acts done by a person must fall within the ambit of terrorist activity and the accused must be a terrorist as defined in Section 3(1) of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. [(2017) 2 MLJ (Crl) 547 (SC) : LNIND 2017 SC 234] Read more 
  6. The Madras High Court, in Techno Plastic Industries, Himachal Pradesh vs. Dart Industries Inc., Orlando, Florida 32837, U.S.A., has held that shapes, by themselves, cannot be said to be immune from copying though the same is within the public domain, unless and until they gain exclusivity either by being registered or acquire a distinctiveness that they cannot be associated with any other person than the prior user of such a shape. [(2017) 4 MLJ 385 : LNIND 2017 MAD 1561] Read more
  7. The High Court of Delhi, in Abigail Louisa Clark & Anr vs. State of NCT OF Delhi & Anr, has asked the Ministry of External Affairs to send communication to all Embassies and High Commissions in Delhi informing foreign nationals to be well aware of the Indian Laws in order to avoid inadvertent violations. [LNINDORD 2017 DEL 1071] Read more

For more important legal judgments, Click Here

 

Click here to register for Lexis®India Trial/Demo

For training, write to contact.in@lexisnexis.com

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: