1. On 13th October, 2008, a two Judges Bench in Siddhapal Kamala Yadav vs State of
2. On 16th October, 2008, a two Judges Bench in Maganlal son of Kishanlal Godha vs Nanasaheb son of Udhaorao Gadewar [C.A. No. 6125 of 2008] while examining the order recorded by the Rent Controller granting permission to the landlord under Clause 13(3) (iv) and (vi) of the Central Provinces and Berar Letting of Houses and Rent Control Order, 1949, held that "the notice issued by the Advocate on behalf of the appellant-landlord prior to filing of the application for eviction of the respondent-tenant under Clause 13 (3) (vi) was not a mandatory requirement postulated under the provisions of the Rent Control Order."
4. On 12th November, 2008, a two Judges Bench in Deepak Bajaj vs State of Maharashtra& Anr [Writ Petition (Crl.) No.77 of 2008] held that the "reputation of a person is a facet of his right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution." "If a person is sent to jail then even if he is subsequently released, his reputation may be irreparably tarnished", the Bench observed.
5. On 12th December, 2008, a two Judges Bench in U.P. Pollution Control Board vs Dr.Bhupendra Kumar Modi & Anr. [Crl. A. No.2019 of 2008] held that since escalating pollutionlevel of environment "affects on the life and health of human beings as well as animals, thecourts should not deal with the prosecution for offences under the pollution and environmental Acts in a causal or routine manner." The Bench observed that the Courts "cannot afford to deal lightly with cases involving pollution of air and water."
7. On 16th December, 2008 a two Judges Bench in M/s. Kumar Exports vs M/s. Sharma Carpets [Criminal Appeal No.2045 of 2008] held that "the accused in a trial under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has two options. He can either show that consideration and debt did not exist or that under the particular circumstances of the case the non-existence of consideration and debt is so probable that a prudent man ought to suppose that no consideration and debt existed. To rebut the statutory presumptions an accused is not expected to prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt as is expected of the complainant in a criminal trial. The accused may adduce direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration and that there was no debt or liability to be discharged by him. However, the court need not insist in every case that the accused should disprove the non-existence of consideration and debt by leading direct evidence because the existence of negative evidence is neither possible nor contemplated. At the same time, it is clear that bare denial of the passing of the consideration and existence of debt,apparently would not serve the purpose of the accused. Something which is probable has to be brought on record for getting the burden of proof shifted to the complainant. To disprove the presumptions, the accused should bring on record such facts and circumstances, upon consideration of which, the court may either believe that the consideration and debt did not exist or their non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that they did not exist. Apart from adducing direct evidence to prove that the note in question was not supported by consideration or that he had not incurred any debt or liability, the accused may also rely upon circumstantial evidence and if the circumstances so relied upon are compelling, the burden may likewise shift again on to the complainant."
sir, can you help in giving any judgement citation of any court on Nullity of marriage under section 12 HMA please
Prakash Ji,
Can pl give Citations of SC regarding Probate of a Will......
Our Network Sites
Prakash Yedhula
