0

Fishermen cannot protest to show their strength to the court. They do not have the legal backing for the encroachment at Marina Loop Road: Madras High Court

Blog

The Madras High Court after passing interim orders on 12th of April, 2023 in the Marina Loop Road Encroachment case, warned the fishermen on 18th April, 2023 to not create ruckus and traffic jams for people on the road. This was seen in the case of Suo Moto v. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. (WP 11064 of 2023) and the case was presided over by Justice S S Sundar and Justice P B Balaji

FACTS OF THE CASE:

 On the 12th of April, 2023, the Madras High Court had passed interim orders to remove all the fish stalls on the road which were causing traffic jams and chaos to the general public. The court had also asked the Chennai Corporation to check if all these fish stalls had the required licenses. The orders were followed by large protests by the fishermen. Thus, this suo moto cognizance.

ORDER:

The court after seeing the large protests by the fishermen, took up this case on suo moto cognizance. The protests further caused inconvenience to the general public. The court thus warned the fishermen to not the up the law in their hands and that they are bound by the orders of the court.

The court also established the fishermen cannot claim traditional rights without having legal backing and rights for the same. It went on to express that the hygiene standards were also low. Some people with vested interests are trying to manipulate the fishermen into making them think that they do have the rights to protest and disrupt public order. In the end, they voiced that the court would also take in the opinions of the fishermen before passing a judgement.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY SWETA SHOUMYA

0

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)

Blog

The ‘ separate but equal’ principle which was affirmed in the Plessy v. Ferguson was rejected in this landmark case,and it helped in creating a legal precedent for the repeal of subsequent racial segregation laws and forever changing the trajectory of racial relations in America.

FACTS OF THE CASE : 

The underlying issue in this case started in 1951 when the Topeka, Kansas public school system forbade Oliver Brown, a local black homeowner, from enrolling his daughter in the neighborhood elementary school closest to their house, forcing her to take a bus to a segregated black school further away. The Topeka Board of Education was sued in a class action lawsuit in U.S. federal court by the Browns and twelve other local Black families who were in comparable circumstances, claiming that the Board’s segregation policy was illegal.

Eight-year-old Linda Brown’s parents launched a lawsuit against the Board of Education to get Linda admitted to the neighborhood school after she was denied  admission at the neighborhood elementary school and transferred to a non-white primary school 21 blocks away. This was a drastic human right violation and a perfect example of blatant racism prevalent in the US. 

JUDGMENT : 

Accordingly, The Court was urged to evaluate whether minority children were denied equal educational opportunities as a result of the evident racial segregation in public schools. They took into account the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and came to the conclusion that racial segregation in public schools had a negative effect on minority pupils because it meant they were less than others. 

JUDGMENT REVIEW BY SREYA MARY. 

 

0

THE STATUTORY RESTRICTION UNDER 167 CRPC CANNOT BE CIRCUMVENTED BY GIVING ANY REASONS INCLUDING GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER TO INVESTIGATE THE CASE: TELANGANA HIGH COURT

Blog

The High Court of Telangana passed a judgment on 31 January, 2023 stating that the statutory restriction under 167 CRPC cannot be circumvented by giving any reasons including giving an opportunity to the Investigating Officer to investigate the case. It was stated in the case of The State Of Telangana vs Boodati Laxminarayana (Criminal Petition No.648 OF 2023)which was passed by the single judge bench comprising of  K.Surender

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The State is aggrieved by the refusal by the Learned Metropolitan Sessions Judge to grant police custody of the respondent for a period of seven days vide order in Crl.M.P.No.107 of 2023 in Crime No.258/2022 of Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad.According to the police, the case is investigated by Assistant Commissioner of Police, CCS, Hyderabad and the respondent/A2 is co-conspirator. He along with other accused, collected huge deposits from customers in the guise of registering commercial space in the proposed commercial complex namely Sahiti Mahita Centro, Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad by executing agreement of sale in favour of several persons including the complainant. However, suitable permissions from the relevant departments were not taken. On complaint made by the victims it was found that Sahiti Infratec Venture India Private Limited collected amount of Rs.40,92,20,687/- and the said complaint was registered and being investigated for the offences under Sections 406, 420, 120-B r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of TSPDFE Act.

 

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

The learned Sessions Judge found on facts that the respondent/accused was being harassed by taking into police custody in several crimes that were registered, though the High Court has directed for joint investigation in all the crimes. Both on facts and also on law, since first 15 days have expired , the Court is not inclined to grant police custody. Accordingly, direction for grant of police custody of Respondent/Accused is refused.

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ROSHNI SABU, KERALA LAW ACADEMY LAW COLLEGE.

 Click here for the judgment

 

 

 

0

WHEN THE EFFECTIVE CONTROL AND COMMAND OF THE BUS IS WITH THE CORPORATION, THE CORPORATION BECOMES THE OWNER OF THE VEHICLE FOR THE SPECIFIED PERIOD :TELANGANA HIGH COURT

Blog

The High Court of Telangana passed a judgment on 29 March, 2023 stating that when the effective control and command of the bus is with the Corporation, the Corporation becomes the owner of the vehicle for the specified period. It was stated in the case of Andhra Pradesh State Road  Transport Corporation vs P. Madhusudhan Reddy, Adilabad(M.A.C.M.A.No.2095 of 2017) which was passed by the single judge bench comprising of M.G.Priyadarsini

 

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident that occurred on 21.12.2009. According to the claimant, on the fateful day, he boarded a bus bearing No. AP 15 Y 8557, owned by respondent No. 1, insured with respondent No. 2, hired by respondent No. 3, from Secunderabad to Mancherial. At about 04:25 a.m., when the said bus reached at the outskirts of Kundanapalli village on Rajiv Rahadar Highway, suddenly the said bus went beyond the road margin and fell down from a bridge in a Nala. As a result, the claimant was crushed in the bus and sustained multiple fractures and injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was taken to Government Area Hospital, Godavarkhani and thereafter he was admitted as inpatient in Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, on 22.12.2009 and discharged on 30.12.2009 and underwent two surgeries on 23.12.2009 & 25.12.2009 respectively. He spent Rs.2,50,000/- towards hospital and medical expenses. According to the claimant, he was hale and healthy and earning Rs.15,000/- per month on business. Due to the accident, he suffered permanent disability and lost his earning capacity. Therefore, he laid the claim against the respondents.

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

The finding of the tribunal in fastening liability jointly and severally upon the RTC along with insurance company is not sustainable under law and liable to be set aside.Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A stands allowed setting aside the findings of the tribunal to the extent of fastening liability jointly and severally upon the appellant-RTC along with the Insurance Company, respondent No. 2. The appellant-RTC is exonerated from the liability of payment of compensation and the respondent No. 1 being owner and respondent No. 2 being insurer of the crime bus are liable to pay the compensation. The appellant-RTC is at liberty to recover the amount, if any already paid/deposited, from the insurer i.e., respondent No. 2. The rate of interest is reduced from 9% per annum to 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of O.P. till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs.

 

 

PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ROSHNI SABU, KERALA LAW ACADEMY LAW COLLEGE.

 Click here for the judgment

 

 

 

0

Executive Magistrate Not Empowered To Record Confession For Offences Under Essential Commodities Act: Orissa High Court

Blog

The Orissa high court has held that an Executive Magistrate is not empowered to record confession for offences committed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in the case of Ananda Ch. Sahu v. State of Odisha (JCRLA No. 37 of 2020), passed by the Division Bench of Justice Debabrata Dash and Justice Sashikanta Mishra.

Facts of the Case:

On March 24, 1984, during an examination at M/s. Minati Stores, it was discovered that although there was no record of any groundnut in shell stock, a total of Qt. 40.95 KGs of groundnuts in shell were discovered during physical verification at two different locations. Additionally, it was discovered that the company did not have a license and had purchased and sold groundnuts in excess of what was legal. Furthermore, neither the shop nor the godown displayed a stock and price declaration board. Accordingly, it was claimed that the aforementioned constituted a violation of Clause 3 of the 1973 Orissa Declaration of Stocks and Prices of Essential Commodities Order. To find the accused guilty of the claimed offense, the court below relied on a confessional statement of one of the accused, the complainant’s testimony, and the Executive Magistrate’s recording of one of the accused’s confession.

The defendants then appealed the judgment of conviction to the High Court on the grounds that (i) the trial court could not have relied on the defendant’s confessional statement because it is illegal to admit such evidence and (ii) the evidence on file does not even remotely connect the defendants to the incident.

Judgment:

The court noted that the Essential Commodities Act does not specify any particular procedure to be followed for the trial of offenses under the Act before deciding whether the accused persons were complicit in the alleged activities. Thus, it was made clear that, in accordance with Section 4(2) of the CrPC, the investigation, inquiry, trial, etc. for offenses under that Act will be governed by the CrPC’s procedure.

Because there is no special method outlined in the Act in this regard, the court decided that, taking into account the language used in Section 164(1) of the CrPC, the provisions relating to recording confessions under the CrPC shall likewise be relevant to the offenses under the said Act. Under Section 164(1), CrPC only a Judicial Magistrate or a Metropolitan Magistrate is empowered to record confession. Thus, an Executive Magistrate has not been conferred any authority under the Code to record confession.

“Click here to view your judgment”

“Prime Legal is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of the best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer”

 JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY HARSHEEN KAUR LUTHRA, RGNUL, PUNJAB

1 … 513 514 515 516 517 … 1,834