Posts

Showing posts from May, 2017

APEX COURT DIGEST -2015

DEFAMATION -sufficient if one sanction is accorded to prosecute all the concerned persons involved in that occurrence,= By careful reading of Section 199(4) of the Cr.P.C., it does not indicate that in order to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused, the public servant needs to obtain sanction from the State Government in respect of each one of the persons against whom the same transaction of offence is alleged and the names of the accused are required to be mentioned specifically in the sanction order accorded by the State Government. It is sufficient if one sanction is accorded to prosecute all the concerned persons involved in that occurrence, thus, the contention on behalf of the appellants in this regard is also liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.

APEX COURT DIGEST 1968

It is open to anyone to express fair, reasonable and legitimate criticism of any act or conduct of a Judge in his judicial capacity or even to make a proper and fair comment on any decision given by him. But, if an article attributes improper motives to the Judge, it not only transgresses the limits of fair and bona fide criticism but has a clear tendency to affect the dignity and prestige of the court and would amount to contempt of court.

APEX COURT DIGEST 2013

whether Civil Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent herein or the subject matter of the suit lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Rajasthan Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’), having regard to the provisions of Section 85 of the Act ? = Apex court held that since the suit was filed much before the Act came into force, going by the dicta laid down in Sardar Khan case, it is the civil court where the suit was filed will continue to have the jurisdiction over the issue and civil court would be competent to decide the same.

APEX COURT DIGEST 2008

whether Section 107 WAKF Act , can revive an extinguished right. We may note that the authority relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in Yeshwantrao Laxmanrao Ghatge and Another (supra) cannot be ignored. That decision was not a case of repeal and accordingly, there was no reference to Section 6 at all in that Act. Nevertheless, it was held in that case that a right extinguished under Section 28 of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be revived by Section 52A. Similarly, in the present case, we are of the opinion that applicability of Section 6 is inconsequential because admittedly, there was an extinguishment of rights under Section 28 and Section 107 cannot revive those extinguished rights.