Important Judgments – December 2017

  1. The Supreme Court of India, in Bijoy Sinha Roy (D) By Lr. vs. Biswanath Das and Others, has held that National Commission was justified in holding that decision to perform surgery may not by itself be held to be medical negligence. [(2017) 8 MLJ 171 : LNINDORD 2017 SC 14120] Read more
  2. The Division Bench of Madras High Court, in N. Ranga Rao and Sons, Rep. By Partner, Vani Vilasa Road, Mysore, 570 004 vs. Amrutha Aromatics, Represented by its Partners, Ms. T.V. Ratna and Others, has held that the Petitioner cannot claim any ‘Exclusivity’ or ‘Monopoly’ right over the words “THREE IN ONE”. [(2017) 8 MLJ 202 : LNINDORD 2017 MAD 4767] Read more
  3. The Supreme Court of India, in State, through Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Dr. Anup Kumar Srivastava, has held that the High Court was well within its powers while quashing the order framing charge as there was no material on record to connect the Respondent accused with the offence in question. [(2017) 4 MLJ (Crl) 393 : LNIND 2017 SC 371] Read more
  4. The Division Bench of Madras High Court, in Ganesan and Another vs. State, by Inspector of Police, Bungalow Pudur Police Station, Erode District, has held that the vital material objects have been introduced subsequently so as to point the accused towards the crime. [(2017) 4 MLJ (Crl) 385 : LNIND 2017 MAD 3487] Read more
  5. The Madras High Court, in A. Ranganayaki and Another vs. Chief Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003 and Another, has held that the learned Single Judge was not correct in dismissing the writ petition filed by the Appellants on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. [(2017) 8 MLJ 382 : LNIND 2017 MAD 3810] Read more
  6. The Supreme Court of India, in HRD Corporation (Marcus Oil and Chemical Division) vs. Gail (India) Limited (Formerly Gas Authority of India Ltd.), has held that if Justice DOABIA did not indicate anything to the contrary, he would be able to devote sufficient time to the arbitration and complete the process within 12 months. [(2017) 8 MLJ 493 : LNIND 2017 SC 437] Read more
  7. The Madras High Court, in State, represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police Namakkal and Others vs. Kamaraj and Others, has confirmed the conviction imposed upon Kamaraj (A2) and Elangovan (A3) under Section 302, but, the sentence of death imposed upon them, is modified to one of imprisonment for life. [(2017) 4 MLJ (Crl) 513 : LNIND 2017 MAD 3588] Read more
  8. The Delhi High Court, in Chamunda Standard Mills vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, has held that there is no infirmity whatsoever in the order dated 5.6.2015 and of the EPFAT, New Delhi and consequential order dated 16.9.2015 in ATA 524(8)15 in view of the non-adherence of the Petitioner of compliance of direction of the Regional Provident Fund Officer, Indore and of the EPFO, Indore. [2017-IV-LLJ-612 : LNIND 2017 DEL 3439] Read more

For more important legal judgments, Click Here

Click here to register for Lexis®India Trial/Demo

For training, write to online.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 )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: