SC: Bail Condition To Compensate Victims Cannot Be Imposed
The Supreme Court has held that at the stage of bail, the condition of payment of compensation to victims cannot be imposed. The decision was given by the Bench consisting of Justice Sajay Kishan Kaul and Justice Hemant Gupta. The case is of Dharmesh V. State of Gujarat. In the given case, the accused were granted bail by the High Court on the condition that required them to deposit a sum of Rupees 2 Lakh to the victim as compensation.
What do you think of this case?
Kerala HC: Mere Erroneous Exercise of Judicial Power Without Extraneous Considerations Is Not Criminal Misconduct
The Kerala High Court has held that mere erroneous exercise of judicial power, without anything more, does not amount to criminal misconduct. The case was of G Suresh Kumar V. State of Kerala. The decision was given by Justice R Narayana Pisharadi. It was also stated that a quasi-judicial order passed by a public servant or judicial authority being incorrect or not being in favor of the Government was not a sufficient ground to warrant the initiation of criminal proceedings.
What do you think of this case?
Contempt Notice Issued By Supreme Court To Suraz India Trust Chairman, Rajiv Daiya
A contempt notice has been issued by the Supreme Court to Suraz India Trust Chairman, Rajeev Daiya, for scandalising the Court. The decision was given by the Bench of Justice Hemant Gupta and Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul. In 2017, a cost of Rupees 25 Lakh had been imposed on Suraz India Trust by the 3 judge Bench for wasting judicial time through frivolous petitions and Rajiv Daiya had been restrained from filing any case in the Court. The contempt notice had been issued for non-compliance of orders and depreciating conduct on the part of Rajiv Daiya.
What do you think of this case?
Delhi HC: CM Advocate Welfare Scheme Discriminatory As It Is Applicable Only To Delhi Residents
The Delhi High Court has stated that the CM Advocates’ Welfare Scheme has laudable objectives but since it is applicable to only residents of Delhi who have Voter ID Cards, it is discriminatory and arbitrary. The Court has directed that the CM Advocates’ Welfare Scheme should be extended to all advocates registered with the Bar Council of Delhi and who reside in Delhi NCR. The decision was given by Justice Pratibha Singh.
What do you think of this case?
Karnataka HC: State Govt Cannot Discriminate Between Castes For Setting Up Financial Corporations
The Karnataka High Court has heard a series of PILs which challenge the legality of the State formed corporations made with the objective of benefitting individual castes, communities and religions. It has been held that the State Government of Karnataka is bound by the Constitution and hence, it cannot discriminate between castes for setting up financial corporations. The decision was given by the Division Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka.
What do you think of this case?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
