Tag: Sanjay Karol J

No Narco Test Without Consent: Supreme Court Cites Constitutional Rights
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

No Narco Test Without Consent: Supreme Court Cites Constitutional Rights

The Supreme Court ruled that involuntary narco-analysis tests violate Articles 20(3) and 21 of the Constitution, affirming that such tests and information derived from them are inadmissible as sole evidence for conviction. While voluntary tests with safeguards are permissible, their results alone cannot lead to conviction. An accused has a right to voluntarily undergo the test during trial, but it's not an indefeasible right; the court must assess all circumstances, including free consent and safeguards. The Court emphasized that a bail application should not involve ordering such involuntary investigative techniques. Facts Of The Case: A First Information Report (FIR No. 545 of 2022) was registered on August 24, 2022, at P.S. Mahua, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,...
Read More
Supreme Court Strikes Down Kerala’s Preventive Detention Order: A Win for Personal Liberty
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Strikes Down Kerala’s Preventive Detention Order: A Win for Personal Liberty

The Supreme Court of India, in Dhanyam v. State of Kerala & Ors., set aside a preventive detention order, emphasizing that such extraordinary power must be used sparingly and only in situations affecting "public order," not merely "law and order". The Court reiterated that if a detenu is on bail and allegedly violating conditions, the State should seek bail cancellation rather than resorting to preventive detention. Facts Of The Case: The appeal originated from a High Court of Kerala judgment dated September 4, 2024, which affirmed a preventive detention order issued on June 20, 2024, by the District Magistrate, Palakkad. The detenu, Rajesh, the appellant's husband, runs a registered lending firm named 'Rithika Finance'. The detention order, issued under Section 3(1) of the Kerala ...
Read More
Supreme Court :No Time Bar for Railways to Recover Penalty on Misdeclared Cargo Under Section 66 of Railways Act
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court :No Time Bar for Railways to Recover Penalty on Misdeclared Cargo Under Section 66 of Railways Act

The Supreme Court of India held that demand notices for misdeclaration of goods under Section 66 of the Railways Act, 1989, can be raised by railway authorities even after delivery of goods. The Court clarified that Section 66 does not specify a stage for imposing such charges , distinguishing it from Sections 73 and 78, which relate to punitive charges for overloading and require recovery before delivery. The Court also stated that the High Court's reliance on Jagjit Cotton Textile Mills v. Chief Commercial Superintendent N.R. was erroneous as that case pertained to overloading and Section 54, not misdeclaration under Section 66. Facts Of The Case: The case involves appeals filed by the Union of India against M/s Kamakhya Transport Pvt. Ltd. and others, stemming from a judgment ...
Read More
Bank’s Gold Revaluation Under Scrutiny: Supreme Court Allows Trial Against Bank Officials
18Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Bank’s Gold Revaluation Under Scrutiny: Supreme Court Allows Trial Against Bank Officials

The Supreme Court of India allowed the appeal by Abhishek Singh, holding that the High Court improperly quashed the FIR filed by him. The High Court erred by considering extraneous documents and evaluating the merits of the case at the quashing stage, rather than determining if a prima facie offense was made out. The proceedings from the FIR are revived, and the guilt or innocence of the respondents is to be established at trial. Facts Of The Case: Abhishek Singh, the appellant, a businessman, secured a loan of ₹7,70,000 from the Bank of India on July 22, 2020, by pledging 254 grams of 22-carat gold ornaments. According to Singh, he repaid the loan, including interest, by March 31, 2023, after receiving a notice from the bank on October 7, 2022, to pay ₹8,01,383.59. However, unbeknownst ...
Read More
Supreme Court Upholds Right to Shut Business, Orders ₹15 Crore Compensation for Workers
14Jun By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Upholds Right to Shut Business, Orders ₹15 Crore Compensation for Workers

This judgment primarily interprets Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, regarding deemed closure. The Court examined if an application for closure was complete and if the State's communication constituted a valid refusal within the statutory 60-day period for deemed permission. It also considered the "appropriate Government's" role and Article 19(1)(g) (freedom of trade) implications. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an application by Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (Biscuit Division) seeking permission to close its undertaking, as required under Section 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The company sought closure due to various reasons, including financial viability issues. The central dispute revolved around whether the State of Maharashtra, as the appropri...
Read More