Article 14 and Article 16(1) are intricately linked and Article 16(1) is a facet of Article 14. Article 16(1) deals with equality of opportunity in public employment. (Sujata Kohli v Reg. Gen Delhi High Court - Judgment of Hon'ble Sup. Ct. dated 24 April 2020)
It may be so that mere receipt of notice having been sent under certificate of posting, in itself, mayn't be sufficient proof of service, but if the same is coupled with other facts and circumstances which go to show that the party had notice, it could be held to be sufficient service on the party. (Md. Asif Naseet v West Watch Company - Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 24 April 2020)
When there is a direct collision between the two enactments which is irreconcilable then only repugnancy results. (T.S. Balliah v TS Rangachari Judgment)
A CM is appointed by the Governor and he is subordinate to the Governor. Refer A.164 and S.52(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935
In Kanwal Tanuj v State of Bihar (2020 - Criminal Appeal No.414/2020 - Hon'ble Supreme Court), CBI has registered an FIR (Refer S.154 and S.155 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). Refer M. Balakrishna Reddy for DSPE Act.
There may be different issue of sanction by State of Bihar when the Court takes cognisance of the offence.
S.6A of DSPE was held unconstitutional in Subramanian Swamy, holding S.6A to be violative of A.14 of the Constitution.
It was argued that policing is a State subject under Entry 2 of List 2 of 7th Schedule.
The 1946 Act has been enacted to make provision for constitution of a special police force in Delhi for the investigation of certain offences (committed) in the Union Territories, for the superintendence and administration of the said force and for the extension to other areas of the powers and jurisdiction of the members in regard to the investigation of the said offences.
The purport of Section 5 of the 1946 Act is to enable the Central Government to extend the powers and jurisdiction of members of the DSPE for the investigation of any offence or class of offences specified in the notification under Section 3, in a State not being a Union Territory. But, the consent under Section 6 of DSPE Act, 1946 is essential, as held in Kanwal Tanuj Judgment.
It may be so that mere receipt of notice having been sent under certificate of posting, in itself, mayn't be sufficient proof of service, but if the same is coupled with other facts and circumstances which go to show that the party had notice, it could be held to be sufficient service on the party. (Md. Asif Naseet v West Watch Company - Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 24 April 2020)
When there is a direct collision between the two enactments which is irreconcilable then only repugnancy results. (T.S. Balliah v TS Rangachari Judgment)
A CM is appointed by the Governor and he is subordinate to the Governor. Refer A.164 and S.52(1) of the Government of India Act, 1935
It has been held that the whole purpose of execution proceedings is to enforce the verdict of the Court. Executing court while executing decree is only concerned with the execution part of it and nothing else. The Court has to take the judgment on its face-value. At the worst, the decree can be ambiguous ; in such a case, it is the duty of the executing court to construe the decree and in ambiguity, court is entitled to look for pleadings and the judgment. [One may refer Manak chand v Manohar Lal AIR 1944 PC 46; Meenakshi Saxena v ECGC (2018) 7 SCC 479 ; Rajasthan Firm Udyog v Hindustand Engg & Industries Ltd (2020 - Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 24 April 2020)
In Kanwal Tanuj v State of Bihar (2020 - Criminal Appeal No.414/2020 - Hon'ble Supreme Court), CBI has registered an FIR (Refer S.154 and S.155 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973). Refer M. Balakrishna Reddy for DSPE Act.
There may be different issue of sanction by State of Bihar when the Court takes cognisance of the offence.
S.6A of DSPE was held unconstitutional in Subramanian Swamy, holding S.6A to be violative of A.14 of the Constitution.
It was argued that policing is a State subject under Entry 2 of List 2 of 7th Schedule.
The 1946 Act has been enacted to make provision for constitution of a special police force in Delhi for the investigation of certain offences (committed) in the Union Territories, for the superintendence and administration of the said force and for the extension to other areas of the powers and jurisdiction of the members in regard to the investigation of the said offences.
The purport of Section 5 of the 1946 Act is to enable the Central Government to extend the powers and jurisdiction of members of the DSPE for the investigation of any offence or class of offences specified in the notification under Section 3, in a State not being a Union Territory. But, the consent under Section 6 of DSPE Act, 1946 is essential, as held in Kanwal Tanuj Judgment.
No comments:
Post a Comment