Posts

Showing posts from December, 2022

While it is true that the quashing of a criminal complaint must be done only in the rarest of rare cases, it is still the duty of the High Court to look into each and every case with great detail to prevent miscarriage of justice.

"Para 28. ...While it is true that the quashing of a criminal complaint must be done only in the rarest of rare cases, it is still the duty of the High Court to look into each and every case with great detail to prevent miscarriage of justice...."

Once a person has been declared to be a proclaimed offender, what recourse is available to him under the law? The order under Section 82(4) declaring accused person a proclaimed offender is not an interlocutory order: P&H High Court. Avtar Singh v. Harminder Singh Kang, (Punjab And Haryana) (23.11.2016)

Image
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT Before:- Fateh Deep Singh, J. CRM-M No.12547 of 2016, CRM-M No.21891 of 2014, CRM-M No.15394 of 2016, CRM-M No.8701 of 2016, CRM-M No.3451 of 2016, CRM-M No.21686 of 2016, CRM-M No.19357 of 2016, CRM-M No.3824 of 2016, CRM-M No.19308 of 2014 (O&M), CRM-M No.43371 of 2015, CRM-M No.16762 of 2016, CRM-M No.44285 of 2015, CRM-M No.26370 of 2015, CRM-M No.26746 of 2015, CRM-M No.5341 of 2016, CRM-M No.2508o 2016, CRM-M No.14238 of 2016, CRM-M No.5470 of 2016, CRM-M No.7098 of 2016, CRM-M No.5793 of 2016, CRM-M No.40522 of 2015, CRM-M No.2317 of 2016, CRM-M No.4776 of 2016, CRM-M No.7272 of 2015, CRM-M No.13004 of 2016 (O&M), CRM-M No.14245 of 2016, CRM-M No.8071 of 2016, CRM-M No.25835 of 2015, CRM-M No.17061 of 2016, CRM-M No.12525 of 2015, CRM-M No.17878 of 2016, CRM-M No.16847 of 2016, CRM-M No.12394 of 2016, CRM-M No.5311 of 2016. D/d. 23.11.2016. Avtar Singh And Others - Petitioners Versus Harminder Singh Kang And Others – Respondents For the Peti...

State of Jharkhand and others versus Linde India Limited and another (SC) (02.12.2022)

REPORTABLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before:- J. M.R. SHAH and J.M.M. SUNDRESH CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 8061-8064 OF 2022 Date of decision: 02.12.2022   State of Jharkhand and others - Appellants Versus   Linde India Limited and Another - Respondents   J U D G M E N T   M.R. SHAH, J.   1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 03.08.2015 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Writ Petition Nos. 1929 of 2015 and other allied writ petitions, preferred by the respondents, by which the H igh Court has allowed the said writ petitions and has quashed and set aside the order dated 30.03.2015 passed by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Ranchi and has also interfered with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the three authorities and has al so quashed the demand notice, holding that the respondents are entitled to benefit of concessional rate of duty at 2% as the use of oxygen can be said to be a “raw material” for the...