SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
... – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
PREFACE
1. A deeply anguished Judge of the Allahabad High Court 1 [Petitioner] has petitioned this Court for enforcement of his Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by invoking his Fundamental Right to constitutional remedy guaranteed by Article 32 thereof.
2. Lest any observation made by us denies the petitioner a level playing field in any future proceedings that he might face, we would tread the path cautiously and refer to, very briefly, only the bare facts leading to presentation of this writ petition as well as deal with only such of the several contentions, as urged, to the extent the same are absolutely necessary for our decision.
FACTS
3. Petitioner finds himself in an unsavoury situation. While the Petitioner was a Judge of the Delhi High Court, there was an incident of fire at a store-room in the bungalow premises allotted to him. On the date of the incident, the Petitioner was away from home. In the process of dousing the fire, certain burnt currency notes were discovered in the store-room. Such discovery gave rise to suspicion that the Petitioner may not have followed the universally accepted values of judicial
Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India,
Sub-Committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India
C. Ravichandran Iyer v. Justice A.M. Bhattacharjee
Additional District and Sessions Judge ‘X’ v. Registrar General, High Court of Madhya Pradesh
P.D. Dinakaran (1) v. Judges Inquiry Committee
K. Veeraswami v. Union of India
D.C. Saxena (Dr) v. Honble The Chief Justice of India
State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand
Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Assn. v. Union of India
Champaklal Chimanlal Shah v. Union of India
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.