Legal Reference Library

In a significant judgement, the , has held that private self financing Colleges cannot withhold certificates of students, for payment of amount. The practise of withholding the certificates, and non-issuance of transfer certificate to students, to coerce them into meeting unconscionable demands like paying entire course fee for leaving the course midway, or to force them to serve the institution after completion of course, etc is very rampant. In clear unambiguous terms, the Court has held that such practise is illegal and opposed to public policy. Often faced with the supreme bargaining position of the Colleges, the students often execute bonds authorising colleges to do so. But, such bonds have no validity in the eyes of law. It was held that :- “The agreements obtained by the College from petitioners authorising them to withhold the certificates of the petitioners cannot be accepted as an approved social conduct and the same, in that sense, is unethical. Further, agreements of tha...

In JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.& ANR VS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS,  the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the vexed questions touching the interpretation of Articles 301 to 307 comprising Part XIII of the Constitution which have been the subject matter of several Constitution Bench decisions of this Court, all but one, decided by majority. The questions assume in a great measure considerable public importance not only because the same deal with the powers of the State legislatures to levy taxes but also because any pronouncement of this Court is bound to impact the federal character of our polity and the Centre-State relationship in legislative and fiscal matters. ORDER By majority the Court answers the reference in the following terms: 1. Taxes simpliciter are not within the contemplation of Part XIII of the Constitution of India. The word ‘Free’ used in Article 301 does not mean “free from taxation”. 2. Only such taxes as are discriminatory in nature are prohibited by Art...

In ANJAN BISWAS vs CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND OTHER, the petitioner’s submission was that either a public employer not lodge a criminal complaint against an employee who is perceived to have committed a criminal offence and against whom a departmental action is  initiated; or, if a criminal complaint is lodged in respect of the same matters, the departmental action has to be suspended till the criminal trial is concluded. In reply while dismissing the Writ petition, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decided that - ........ 24. The life of law may be experience and not logic, but that does not imply that the law is illogical or asinine. That criminal matters are not disposed of in a hurry in this country is a matter of public knowledge and has been judicially recognised for decades. Notwithstanding the present fashion of even questioning the obvious and irrefutable by taking advantage of the rules of evidence, the judicial system cannot be mocked by suggesting the absurd. Whi...

The Calcutta High Court, in Indian Oil Officers’ Association vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd, has held that an Association has a clear right to maintain this writ application on behalf of its members. Justice I.P. Mukerji referring to various Apex Court decisions, also observed that body corporate may not only sue or be sued for violation of Article 19 but it may also sue for violation of Article 14 or any other law. This observation was made in a Writ petition preferred by a registered Trade Union against IOC challenging a Memorandum of Understanding purportedly entered into by six members of this Association with the Corporation. It is argued IOC that “the writ was by the Association. It primarily complained of the infringement of fundamental rights by the Corporation under Article 19 of the Constitution of India. Article 19 conferred those rights on citizens only. He cited The Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. the State of Bihar and others, The Automobile Products of India ...

Delhi High Court in Joginder Singh vs. State has observed that keeping a criminal case pending for indefinite period amounts to violation of constitutional rights of the accused recognized under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Quashing the criminal cases against the accused which were pending since 1998, Justice Suresh Kait said “The petitioner is facing the trial since 1998 although there is no delay on his part. More than 17 years have already been passed”. In 1996, FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 468/471/120B/34 IPC, but charges are not framed till date. The petitioner in this case was arrested on the basis of a disclosure statement made by one Daljeet Singh. Two other accused persons have been declared as proclaimed offenders. Referring to Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 2009 SC 1822 , the court said “Nothing material has been brought in the notice of this Court that delay in framing charge is caused by the peti...

High Court of Chhattisgarh has held that the exclusion of widowed daughter-in-law in compassionate appointment policy is constitutionally impermissible and to that extent void. Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal made this observation in Duliya Bai Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh. The High Court, in a petition filed by a widowed daughter in law of a deceased employee challenging the order rejecting her application seeking compassionate appointment, said that implied exclusion of daughter-in-law from the fray of consideration by the State Government without considering the fact as to whether the daughter-in-law is dependent or not is constitutionally impermissible. The Court observed “On marriage, wife becomes integral part of the husband’s marital room entitled to equal status of husband as a member of the family and, therefore, a woman on marriage becomes a member of her matrimonial family and she has rights and obligations in the family. A daughter-in-law is considered, traditionally, as Grih ...

Patna High Court has held that Division Bench of a High Court cannot exercise its power of superintendence, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against an order made, in a suit, by a Single Bench of the High Court. Division Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice I.A. Ansari and Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh observed that single Judge or a single Bench of a High Court is not a court subordinate to the Division Bench of the High Court. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.718 of 2016 =========================================================== ANIL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, SON OF LATE CHITRANJAN SAHAY VERMA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA HARI SABHA CHOWK, P.S. – MITHANPURA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR .... .... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. SHAURYA SUNIL, S/O SUNIL KUMAR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – HARI SABHA CHOWK, P.S. MITHANPURA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH CAV JUD...

In INSPECTOR (MAHILA) RAVINA vs Union of India, the promotion of a (Mahila) Inspector GD in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) was blocked since as per the Department she “had shown unwillingness to attend the promotional course‟. The Petitioner argued that she was in Stage III of her pregnancy and therefore could not attend the necessary courses. The main question which this court has to decide is whether the Petitioner’s pregnancy would amount to unwillingness or signify her inability to attend a required promotional course and if she is entitled to a relaxation of rules to claim seniority at par with her batchmates. The court allowed the petitioners plea by stating that ….to conclude that pregnancy amounts to mere unwillingness - as the respondents did in this case- was an indefensible. The choice to bear a child is not only a deeply personal one for a family but is also a physically taxing time for the mother. This right to reproduction and child rearing is an essential fa...