Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.S.Pathak, CJI., M.N.Venkatachaliah, S.Natarajan, JJ.
S.K.Wadhera
Versus
Rajinder Gautam
Case No. : 223 of 1988
Date of Decision : 4/7/88
Quash of order – Anticipatory bail - Learned counsel for parties and having perused medical report and having considered circumstances of this case court quash order of High court granting interim bail to respondent and direct respondent to surrender by Monday to authorities – Held, Court are informed that respondent has to undergo an operation in hospital - If any date is fixed in that behalf by hospital authorities an application may be made in High court for suitable orders enabling him to be available for operation - Appeal is disposed of
(1) SPECIAL leave granted.
(2) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the medical report and having considered the circumstances of this case, we quash the order of the High court granting interim bail to the respondent and direct the respondent to surrender by Monday 11/04/1988 to the authorities. At the same time, we trust it will be possible for the High court to dispose of the bail application pending before it at a very early date.
(3) WE are informed that the respondent has to undergo an operation in the hospital. If any date is fixed in that behalf by the hospital authorities, an application may be made in the High court for suitable orders enabling him to be available for operation.
(4) THE appeal is disposed of accordingly.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
