Law & Behold

Sonu, who is in custody under Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act), w.e.f. 29.11.2019 for possessing 18.44 grams of heroin (Deacetyl morphine), has now come up before High Court under Section 439 of CrPC, seeking bail, on the grounds that the quantity of contraband allegedly seized is intermediate quantity and does not restrict bail, because the quantity greater than 250 grams of heroin (Deacetyl morphine), falls in the category of the commercial quantity; hence the restrictions for bail imposed in S. 37 of NDPS Act, do not apply, and in the present case he is in custody for a considerable time. What does the Court do?

Sonu Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh

Case No : Cr. MP (M) No. 264 of 2021

Bench : Anoop Chitkara

Citation : 2021 Indlaw HP 196

Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q-5-HLnI8YB-MFMBrRHpN-Yx5pv92rfO/view?usp=sharing

Instagram: lawandbehold

This episode discusses two important issues (i) the period of limitation for filing an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; and (ii) whether the Court may refuse to make the reference under Section 11 where the claims are ex facie time-barred?

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another v Nortel Networks India Private Limited

Civil Appeal Nos. 843-844 of 2021

2021 Indlaw SC 109

Link to Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Pkfsc2-jm_62B7Pj1-E6b3_uCZlgv5Ef/view?usp=sharing

Feedspot has enlisted Law and Behold in Top 20 Podcasts on Indian Law! To see the list and discover more click on https://blog.feedspot.com/indian_law_podcasts/

Jayashree was married to Shivaji Chintappa Patil in 1995. They were blessed with two children. On the fateful night of 23rd March 2003,  Shivaji and Jayashree went to sleep in their house. At the dawn of 24th March 2003, Ramchandra Chintappa gave a call to the Shivaji, so that they could go to their field for harvesting jawar crop. Shivaji opened the door and expressed his inability to accompany him to the field stating, that Jayashree had committed suicide by hanging.

A trial follows and Shivaji is convicted for murder. The case eventually reaches Supreme Court. Join in, as we examine Circumstantial Evidence.

Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra

Criminal Appeal No. 1348 of 2013

2021 Indlaw SC 87

Link to Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tRZfK0peY7flM5R94RjsoUK0L_VKCTlD/view?usp=sharing

Feedspot has enlisted Law and Behold in Top 20 Podcasts on Indian Law! To see the list and discover more click on https://blog.feedspot.com/indian_law_podcasts/

The transaction relating to goods took place in Gujarat, the representations and meeting took place in Gujarat, the goods were shipped from a port in Gujarat, bill of ladings were released from Gujarat, the invoices were raised by the entity based out of Gujarat and the jurisdiction of such invoices were subject to the court of Gujarat. But the FIR was registered in Delhi!

As per Section 177, CrPC, an inquiry and trial with respect of an offence is to be conducted by the court within whose local jurisdiction occurrence is said to have taken place, and the cause of action has arisen. Sections 178 and 179 are merely exceptions to the principle laid down in Section 177. Their scope should not be enlarged on analogous consideration. Ordinarily, the case is to be tried by the court in whose local limits the offence was committed, which in the present case is the state of Gujarat. In addition, for determination of offences alleged to have been committed under Section 406, IPC, Section 181, CrPC lays down that the jurisdiction lies with court where the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained.

Join is as we discuss this and lots more with Mohit Negi.

Ramesh Boghabhai Bhut v. State and Another

Crl.M.C. 1616/2020 & Crl.M.A. 10307/2020

2020 SCC OnLine Del 1475

Link to Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1brwFF_SlpjMfnJZK9jnISO3i61JpT086/view?usp=sharing

https://www.instagram.com/lawandbehold/

Joginder and Karamveer who are the residents of Village Sarsad, Tehsil Gohana, District Sonepat encroached upon the panchayat land and constructed the houses. The Government of Haryana framed a policy regarding sale of panchayat land in unauthorised possession. Joginder and Karamveer submitted the application before the competent authority along with the resolution of the concerned panchayat and requested to sell the lands occupied by them illegally and unauthorizedly, but the same was rejected. The case eventually reached Supreme Court. This and lots more in this episode of Law and Behold.

Case Name: Joginder and another v State of Haryana and others

Citation: 2021 Indlaw SC 37

Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RjecXawFtdiDXpZtgMMe8o32nKXZ7gsA/view?usp=sharing 

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandbehold/ 

Professor TJ Joseph while framing the Malayalam question paper for the second semester B.Com. examination at the Newman College, Thodupuzha, had included a question which was considered objectionable against a particular religion by certain sections of society. Prosecution alleged that Najeeb in association with other members of the Popular Front of India (PFI), decided to avenge this purported act of blasphemy. On 04.07.2010 at about 8AM, a group of people with a common object, attacked the victim-professor while he was returning home with his mother and sister after attending Sunday mass at a local Church. Over the course of the attack, members of the PFI forcefully intercepted the victim's car, restrained him and chopped-off his right palm with choppers, knives, and a small axe. Country-made bombs were also hurled at bystanders to create panic and terror in their minds and to prevent them from coming to the aid of the victim.

Najeeb was arrested on 10.04.2015 and has been in jail since then. The Kerala High Court granted him bail, but the Supreme Court stayed that Order. Did Najeeb finally get bail from Supreme Court? What are the contours of bail jurisprudence in special laws such as UAPA. This and lots more in Episode 2 of Law and Behold!

Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb

Criminal Appeal No. 98 of 2021

2021 Indlaw SC 30

Link to Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16MLTsjbBuQ3fXacA5_tCEam-I90aQ4ho/view?usp=sharing

https://www.instagram.com/lawandbehold/

The institution of Advocate on Record is specific to the Supreme Court of India. The question which is raised in the present case is whether an Advocate-on-Record can have the entry in the Advocate-on-Record Register in the form of his style of carrying on the profession instead of Siddharth Murarka, as Law chamber of Siddharth Murarka?

In Re: Advocate on Record Includes A Proprietary Firm

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1107/2020

2021 Indlaw SC 21

Link to Judgment: https://drive.google.com/file/d/16MLTsjbBuQ3fXacA5_tCEam-I90aQ4ho/view?usp=sharing

Welcome to Season 2 of Law and Behold! A weekly podcast full of facts, fun and law. Presenting to you the latest and most interesting judgments from Courts all over India. 

Instagram: lawandbehold

The Police says that it recovered 15.07 grams of Heroin from the flat of Suresh Thakur. He was arrested and put into jail. The drugs were apparently purchased from a foreigner in Delhi. But Suresh is himself a drug addict. In this season finale, we see how the Himachal Pradesh High Court decided Suresh’s bail application.

Judgment-Suresh Thakur v State of Himachal Pradesh

Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Belj4N7zxndCzcQmyH9cxONixoIpgbQI/view?usp=sharing

Citation: 2020 Indlaw HP 485

Twitter: https://twitter.com/law_behold

Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandbehold/