Some Interesting Decisions

Some Interesting Decisions 

State of Maharashtra v Ravindranath Kautik Mohite [2016] GCtR 4405 (Bombay) : If    delay    is   caused on account of  non processing of the file then the Applicant is entitled to get interest on the delayed pension.

M/s.Ravindranath GE Medicate Associate Private Limited v M/s.Clean Coats Private Limited [2016] GCtR 4407 (Bombay) : Section 18(3) of the MSMED Act, 2006 clearly indicates that once the conciliation initiated under section 18(2) is not successful and stands terminated without any settlement between the parties, the dispute has to be resolved by arbitration and for such dispute resolution, the provisions of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 shall apply to such disputes as if the arbitration was pursuant to the arbitration agreement referred to in section 7(1) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 

Pradeep Sakharam Mayekar v State of Maharashtra [2016] GCtR 4408 (Bombay) :Duty to act in a fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory and objective manner is a facet of the Rule of Law in a constitutional democracy like ours.  The action that is arbitrary has no place in a polity governed by Rule of Law apart from being offensive to the equality clause guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

State of Maharashtra v Vijay Ghogre [2016] GCtR 4406 (Bombay) : There is no total bar for the State to use and utilise it's enabling power to provide Reservation to all the similarly placed class/group.

Kandarpa Pathak v Mono Kanta Baruah [2016] GCtR 3358 (Gauhati) : A bare reading of Order XIX Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 leaves no manner of doubt that the said provision can be invoked when the Court requires any particular fact or facts to be proved by affidavit and such evidence is tendered by way of affidavit, than the Court can order, at the instance of either party, the presence of the deponent for cross examination. What, therefore, follows is that in order to invoke the jurisdiction under Order XIX Rule 2, there must be a proceeding where any fact or facts are being sought to be proved by affidavit and in deference to the said purpose, evidence in given by either party, by affidavit.

Mohammad Munaf Mohammad Hanif Bedre v State of Maharashtra [2016] GCtR 4409 (Bombay) : Recourse to affinity test can be taken if the other documentary evidence, which was conclusive in nature was not available.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters/blogs without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made by the violator. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957. This is not to be considered as any professional legal advice and does not constitute client-attorney relationship.