Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ, Sushrut Arvind, Dharmadhikari and Vivek Jain, JJ.
Ramlal Jhariya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Writ Petitions No. 11356 of 2024 with W.A. No. 2763/2024, M. Cr. C. No. 6762/2024, W.P. No. 18164/2024, W.P. No. 18492/2024, M. Cr. C. No. 35204/2024, M. Cr. C. No. 37906/2024, W.P. No. 6542/2024 and W.P. No. 23359/2024 (Jabalpur); Decided on 21.4.2025
¼1½ vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1915 ¼e-ç-½ & /kkjk 47d rFkk 47?k & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 300d rFkk 19¼1½¼N½ & /kkjk 47d dh lkafo/kkfud fof/kekU;rk & dk;Zikfydk dks fopkj.k ds yacu ds nkSjku Hkh vf/kgj.k dk vkns'k ikfjr djus dh 'kfä nsuk rFkk ;ku ds Lokeh dks Kku ds vHkko vkSj ekSukuqdwyrk dh çfrj{kk ugha nsuk & lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 19¼6½ ds v/khu fu;r dh xbZ çkf/kdkj dh lhekvksa ds Hkhrj fof/kekU; 'kfä dh dksfV esa ugha vkrk & jkT; ds dk;Zikfydk Lda/k dks vuuqikfrd 'kfä nsus dh dksfV esa vkrk gS] ftlls vuqPNsn 19¼1½¼N½ }kjk çR;kHkwr ewy vfèkdkj vkSj vuqPNsn 300d }kjk çnÙk lkafo/kkfud vf/kdkj dk vfrØe.k gksrk gS vfHkfu/kkZfjr & e-ç- vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 47d lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 19¼1½¼N½ vkSj 300d ds vfèkdkjkrhr ?kksf"kr & vf/kgj.k dk vkns'k vc /kkjk 46 rFkk 47 ds fuca/kukuqlkj vijk/k dk fopkj.k djus okys nkafMd U;k;ky; }kjk gh ikfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS & vko';d ifj.kkeLo:i] /kkjk 47?k mu lc çdj.kksa esa vçorZuh; gks tk,xh ftuesa vf/kgj.k ds vkns'k vc rd ikfjr ugha gq, & ;g vkns'k Hkfo";y{kh :i ls gh ykxw gksxkA 1967 ts,yts 153 ,vkbvkj 1967 ,llh 276] 2025 ,llhlh v‚uykbu ,llh 40] ¼2017½ 14 ,llhlh 502] ¼2021½ 16 ,llhlh 474] ¼2004½ 4 ,llhlh 129] 2022 ¼2½ ts,yts 1 ¾ 2022 ¼13½ ,llhlh 310] 2008 ¼1½ ts,yts 427 ¾ ¼2008½ 14 ,llhlh 624] 1995 lIyh- ¼1½ ,llhlh 596 rFkk 2016 ¼2½ ts,yts 143 ¾ ¼2016½ 7 ,llhlh 353 foosfprA 2000 ¼1½ ts,yts 304 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ ¾ 2000 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 289 voyafcrA ¼1985½ 4 ,llhlh 573 çHksfnrA 2003 ¼3½ ts,yts 22 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ ¾ 2003 vkb,yvkj ¼,eih½ 579 vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k vfÒfuèkkZZfjrA ¼iSjk 46] 67] 68] 96&v ,oa 97½
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 19 & lkafo/kkfud vf/kdkj vkR;afrd ugha gksrs & vuqPNsn 19¼1½ ds v/khu ewy vf/kdkj Hkh vuqPNsn 19¼6½ ds v/khu lhekvksa ds vè;èkhu gks ldrs gSaA ¼iSjk 65½
¼3½ iwoZ fu.kZ; & vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd, tkus dk fl)kar & tc dkuwuh mica/k vuns[kk fd;k x;k gks rks fu.kZ; vuo/kkurk ds dkj.k fd;k x;k gks tk,xk] ijarq de&ls&de mu i{kdkjksa ds e/; ml çdj.k esa mldk vkc)dkjh çHkko cuk jgsxk] Hkys gh vU; çdj.kksa ds fy, iwoZ fu.kZ; ds :i esa mldk ewY; ugha gksA ¼1988½ 2 ,llhlh 602] ¼1990½ 3 ,llhlh 682] ¼2014½ 16 ,llhlh 623] ¼2017½ 16 ,llhlh 680] ¼2020½ 4 ,llhlh 1 rFkk 2003 ¼1½ ts,yts 105 ¼fo'ks"k U;k;ihB½ ¾ 2003 ¼1½ ,eih,yts 513 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 76½
¼4½ xksoa'k o/k çfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e] 2004 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 11¼5½ & e-iz- xksoa'k o/k çfr"ksèk fu;e] 2012 & fu- 5 & ;ku dk vf/kgj.k & vf/kgj.k dh çfØ;k u rks xksoa'k vf/kfu;e esa vfèkdfFkr dh xbZ gS] vkSj u lu~ 2012 ds fu;eksa esa -- vfèkgj.k ds fy, lkeF;Zdkjh mica/k ek= fn;k x;k gS & U;k;ky; ds le{k fopkj.k esa lcwr dk Hkkj Lokeh ij gksrk gS] tks ;ku dk Lokeh gks Hkh ldrk gS] vkSj ugha HkhA ¼iSjk 88½
¼5½ xksoa'k o/k çfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e] 2004 ¼e-iz-½ & /kkjk 11¼5½ & Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 300d & nkafMd fopkj.k ds yacu ds nkSjku ;ku vf/kg~r djus dk dysDVj@ftyk eftLVªsV çkf/kdkj & Lokeh ds Kku ds vHkko vkSj ekSukuqdwyrk dh çfrj{kk Lokeh dks miyC/k ugha djkbZ xbZ gS & u gh vf/kgj.k ds fy, dksbZ çfØ;k vf/kdfFkr dh xbZ gS & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ;|fi vf/kgj.k dh dk;Zokgh nkafMd fopkj.k ds lekukarj vkjaHk dh tk ldrh vkSj pykbZ tk ldrh gS] rFkkfi nkafMd fopkj.k iw.kZ gksus ds iwoZ vf/kgj.k dk vkns'k ikfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk & dysDVj@ftyk eftLVªsV ;ku vf/kg~r djus ds fy, rc gh l'kä gksxk tc nkafMd fopkj.k esa nks"kflf) vfHkfyf[kr dh xbZ gks rFkk ;ku dk varoZfyr gksuk vkSj Lokeh dk Kku@ekSukuqdwyrk nkafMd fopkj.k esa lkfcr gks x, gksaA 2022 ¼2½ ts,yts 1 ¾ 2022 ¼13½ ,llhlh 310 rFkk fo'ks"k btktr ;kfpdk,¡ ¼nkafMd½ Øekad 1910&1911 lu~ 2024 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 94 ,oa 96&B½
¼6½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku & vuqPNsn 226 & e-ç- vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e] 1915 & èkkjk 47d e-ç- xksoa'k o/k çfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e] 2004 & /kkjk 11¼5½ & fjV ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; gksuk & vkuqdfYid mipkj dk otZu & vf/kdkfjrkjfgr vkns'k vihy@iqujh{k.k dk vkuqdfYid mipkj miyC/k gksus ds ckotwn mPp U;k;ky; fjV vf/kdkfjrk dk ç;ksx djrs gq, gLr{ksi dj ldrk gS & vkuqdfYid mipkj vkRe&vf/kjksfir fucZ/ku ek= gksus vkSj fjV vf/kdkfjrk ds ç;ksx dk vkR;afrd otZu ugha gksus ds dkj.k] tgk¡ vkns'k ,sls çkf/kdkjh }kjk ikfjr fd;k x;k gS ftls vkns'k ikfjr djus dk dksbZ çkf/kdkj ugha] mPp U;k;ky; lnSo fjV ;kfpdk xzg.k dj ldrk gS & tgk¡ dysDVj@ftyk eftLVªsV }kjk e-ç- vkcdkjh vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu 'kfä ç;qä djrs gq, rFkk xksoa'k o/k çfr"ks/k vf/kfu;e ds v/khu fopkj.k iw.kZ gksus ds iwoZ ;ku vf/kg~r djrs gq, vkns'k ikfjr fd;k x;k gS] ogk¡ fjV ;kfpdk pyus ;ksX; gSA ¼2021½ 6 ,llhlh 771 rFkk ¼1998½ 8 ,llhlh 1 vuqlfjrA 2021 ¼1½ ts,yts 283 ¾ ¼2021½ 1 ,eih,yts 348] çdh.kZ nkafMd ;kfpdk Øekad 1296 lu~ 2015] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 19528 lu~ 2022] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 18178 lu~ 2023] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 28288 lu~ 2023] dysDVj fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 29095 lu~ 2023] çdh.kZ nkafMd ;kfpdk Øekad 1036 lu~ 2021] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 28700 lu~ 2022] çdh.kZ ;kfpdk Øekad 2141 lu~ 2023] fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 21818 lu~ 2023 rFkk fjV ;kfpdk Øekad 7695 lu~ 2024 fufnZ"VA ¼iSjk 95 ,oa 96½
¼7½ vkcdkjh vfèkfu;e] 1915 ¼e-ç-½ & èkkjk 47&d rFkk 47&Ä & e-ç- x¨oa'k oèk çfr"ksèk vfèkfu;e] 2004 & èkkjk 11¼5½ & e-ç- x¨oa'k oèk çfr"ksèk fu;e] 2012 & fu- 5 & mi;qZä vfèkfu;e¨a d¢ vèkhu tCrh dh vkijkfèkd dk;Zokfg;k¡ yafcr jgus d¢ n©jku tCrh dk vkns'k ikfjr djus dh vfèkdkfjrk & iw.kZ U;k;ihB d¨ fufnZ"V ç'u fuEukuqlkj mÙkfjrA
¼d½ dysDVj d¨ tCrh dk vkns'k ikfjr djus dk vfèkdkj çnku djus okyh e-ç- vkcdkjh vfèkfu;e dh èkkjk 47&d dks Òkjr d¢ lafoèkku d¢ vuqPNsn 19¼1½¼N½ rFkk 300&d dk vuuqikfrd :i ls vfrØe.k djus d¢ dkj.k vfèkdkjkrhr Ĩf"kr fd;k tkrk gSA blfy, vkijkfèkd ekeys d¢ yacu d¢ n©jku dysDVj }kjk ekeys esa tCrh d¢ ç'u dk vfLrRo ugÈ jgrk D;¨afd tCrh dk vkns'k vc d¢oy èkkjk 46 rFkk 47 d¢ vuqlkj vijkèk dk fopkj.k djus okys vkijkfèkd U;k;ky; }kjk gh ikfjr fd;k tk ldrk gSA bld¢ vko';d ifj.kkeLo:i] èkkjk 47&Ä mu lÒh ekey¨a esa vçorZuh; g¨ tk,xh tgk¡ vÒh rd tCrh ds vkns'k ikfjr ugÈ fd, x, gSa D;¨afd ;g vuko';d g¨ xà gSA
¼[k½ x¨oa'k vfèkfu;e d¢ vèkhu ekey¨a d¢ fy,] dysDVj@ftyk eftLVªsV vkijkfèkd ekeys d¢ yacu d¢ n©jku tCrh dh dk;Zokgh vkjaHk djus d¢ fy, l{ke g¨xk] ijarq vkijkfèkd ekeyk iw.kZ gksus ls iwoZ tCrh dk vkns'k ikfjr ugÈ fd;k tk ldrk v©j dysDVj@ftyk eftLVªsV ;ku d¨ tCr djus ds fy, d¢oy rc l'kä g¨xk tc nkafMd fopkj.k esa n¨"kflf) vfÒfyf[kr dj nh tk, rFkk ;ku dh lafyIrrk v©j Lokeh dh tkudkjh@ekSukuqdwyrk nkafMd fopkj.k esa lkfcr g¨ tk,A
¼x½ fjV ;kfpdk rc pyus ;¨X; g¨xh tc dysDVj@ftyk eftLVªsV }kjk e-ç- vkcdkjh vfèkfu;e] 1915 d¢ micaèk¨a d¢ vèkhu 'kfä;¨a dk ç;¨x dj ;ku¨a d¨ tCr djus dk vkns'k ikfjr fd;k tk,] rFkk x¨oa'k vfèkfu;e d¢ ekeys esa rc tc og fopkj.k iw.kZ gksus ls iwoZ ikfjr fd;k tk,] D;ksafd og vfèkdkfjrkjfgr g¨xkA ¼iSjk 96½
¼8½ vkns'k & ykxw g¨uk & ;g vkns'k iSjk 97 d¢ vèkhu ¼d½] ¼[k½] ¼x½ rFkk ¼Ä½ esa nh xà jhfr esa d¢oy Òfo";y{kh :i ls gh ykxw g¨xkA ¼iSjk 97½
(1) Excise Act, 1915 (M.P.) -- Ss. 47A and 47D -- Constitution of India -- Arts. 300A and 19(1)(g) -- Constitutional validity of S. 47A -- power given to Executive to pass order for confiscation even during pendency of trial, and not opening defence of lack of knowledge and connivance to owner of vehicle -- does not amount to valid power within limits of authority set out under Art. 19(6) of Constitution -- amounts to giving away disproportionate power to Executive wing of State, violating fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 19(1)(g) and Constitutional right conferred by Art. 300A -- held -- S. 47A of M. P. Excise Act declared ultra vires Arts. 19(1)(g) and 300A of Constitution -- order for confiscation can now be passed only by criminal Court trying the offence in terms of Ss. 46 and 47 thereof -- as necessary consequence, S.47D would become inoperative in all cases where confiscation orders have not been passed as yet -- this order would be applicable only prospectively. 1967 JLJ 153 = AIR 1967 SC 276, 2025 SCC Online SC 40, (2017) 14 SCC 502, (2021) 16 SCC 474, (2004) 4 SCC 129, 2022 (2) JLJ 1 = 2022 (13) SCC 310, (SC) 2008 (1) JLJ 427 = (2008) 14 SCC 624, 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 596 and 2016 (2) JLJ 143 = (2016) 7 SCC 353 discussed. 2000 (1) JLJ 304 (FB) = 2000 (1) MPLJ 289 relied on. (1985) 4 SCC 573 distinguished. 2003 (2) JLJ 22 (FB) = 2003 ILR (MP) 579 per incuriam. [Paras 46, 67, 68, 96.A & 97]
(2) Constitution of India -- Art. 19 -- Constitutional rights are not absolute even - fundamental rights under Art. 19(1) can be subject to limitations under Art. 19(6). [Para 65]
(3) Precedent -- principle of per incuriam -- when a statutory provision is ignored, the judgement will become per incuriam, but it will continue to have binding effect on at least that case between those parties, though may not have value as precedent for other cases. (1988) 2 SCC 602, (1990) 3 SCC 682, (2014) 16 SCC 623, (2017) 16 SCC 680, (2020) 4 SCC 1 and 2003 (1) JLJ 105 (Special Bench) = 2003 (1) MPLJ 513 followed. [Para 76]
(4) Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 (M. P.) -- S. 11(5) -- M. P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 -- R.5 -- confiscation of vehicle -- no procedure for confiscation has been laid down either in Cow Progeny Act or in Rules of 2012 -- only enabling provision for confiscation is there -- burden of proof is on owner in trial before Court, who may or may not be owner of vehicle. [Para 88]
(5) Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 (M. P.) -- S. 11(5) -- Constitution of India -- Art. 300A -- authority of Collector/District Magistrate to confiscate vehicles during pendency of criminal trial -- no defence of lack of knowledge and connivance of owner has been made available to owner -- nor has any procedure for confiscation been laid down -- held -- though proceedings for confiscation can be initiated and proceeded parallel to criminal trial, but no confiscation order can be passed before conclusion of criminal trial -- Collector/District Magistrate would be empowered to confiscate vehicle only if conviction is recorded in criminal trial and involvement of vehicle and knowledge/connivance of owner is proved in criminal trial. 2022 (2) JLJ (1) = 2022 (13) SCC 310 and SLPs (Criminal) No. 1910-1911 of 2024 followed. [Paras 94 & 96.B]
(6) Constitution of India -- Art. 226 -- M. P. Excise Act, 1915 -- S. 47A -- M.P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 -- S. 11(5) -- maintainability of writ petition -- bar of alternative remedy -- order without jurisdiction -- High Court can interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction even on availability of alternative remedy of appeal/revision -- alternative remedy being only self-imposed restriction and not absolute bar to exercise of writ jurisdiction, where order is passed by authority having no authority to pass order, High Court can always entertain writ petition -- writ petition is maintainable once order is passed by Collector/District Magistrate confiscating vehicles by exercising powers under provisions of M. P. Excise Act and before conclusion of trial under Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam. (2021) 6 SCC 771 and (1998) 8 SCC 1 followed. 2021 (1) JLJ 283 = (2021) 1 MPLJ 348, M. Cr. C. No. 1296 of 2015, W. P. No. 19528 of 2022, W. P. No. 18178 of 2023, W. P. No. 28288 of 2023, W. P. No. 29095 of 2023, M. Cr. C. No. 1036 of 2021, W. P. No. 28700 of 2022, No. 2141 of 2023, W. P. No. 21818 of 2023 and W. P. No. 7695 of 2024 referred to. [Paras 95 & 96.C]
(7) Excise Act, 1915 (M.P.) -- Ss. 47-A and 47-D -- M. P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 -- S. 11(5) -- M. P. Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Rules, 2012 -- R.5 -- jurisdiction to pass confiscation order during pendency of criminal proceedings under above Acts -- questions referred to Full Bench answered as under.
(A) Section 47-A of M. P. Excise Act conferring authority on the Collector to pass order for confiscation is declared ultra vires being disproportionately violative of Articles 19(1)(g) and 300-A of the Constitution of India. Therefore, question of confiscation by the Collector during pendency of criminal trial no longer survives in the matter, as order for confiscation can now be passed only by the criminal Court trying the offence in terms of sections 46 and 47 thereof. As a necessary consequence thereto, section 47-D would become inoperative in all cases where confiscation orders have not been passed as yet, having rendered superfluous.
(B) For cases under Cow Progeny Act, the Collector/District Magistrate shall be competent to initiate proceedings for confiscation during pendency of criminal trial, but no confiscation order can be passed before conclusion of criminal trial and the Collector/District Magistrate would be empowered to confiscate the vehicle only if conviction is recorded in criminal trial and involvement of vehicle and knowledge/connivance of the owner is proved in the criminal trial.
(C) Writ petition is maintainable once an order is passed by the Collector/District Magistrate confiscating the vehicles by exercising powers under the provisions of M. P. Excise Act, 1915 and in case of Cow Progeny Act, if it is passed before conclusion of trial, because it will be without jurisdiction. [Para 96]
(8) Order -- applicability -- this order would be applicable only prospectively in the manner given in paras (a), (b), (c) and (d) under para 97. [Para 97]
Key Points: - The court holds that Section 47-A is ultravires for Excise Act, invalidating parallel confiscation by Collector during pendency of criminal trial; confiscation to be by criminal court under sections 46 and 47; 47-D becomes inoperative in pending cases. (!) (!) - For Cow Progeny Act, Collector/District Magistrate may initiate confiscation during pendency but cannot pass an order until conclusion of criminal trial; confiscation may occur only if conviction and involvement/knowledge of owner proven. (!) (!) - Writ petition maintainability: maintainable for challenge to confiscation orders by Collector/District Magistrate under Excise Act before trial concludes; otherwise as per law. (!) (!) - Order applicable prospectively with detailed directions for pending and concluded cases. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
ORDER
Per: Hon'ble Shri Justice Vivek Jain
1. The case in W.P. No. 11356/2024 and bunch of connected cases relate to the question of confiscation of vehicles during the pendency of the criminal trial under M.P. Excise Act 1915 where the vehicle owner may or may not be the accused in criminal case, whereas the case in W.P. No. 23359/2024 relates to same question of confiscation during pendency of the trial under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 during pendency of criminal trial. Since analogous questions arise for consideration in both these batches of matters, they are being taken up and decided by this common order.
2. In W.P. No. 11356/2024, the following questions have been referred for adjudication to larger Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.5.2024 passed by the a Single Bench. The questions referred are as under:-
“(A) Whether, any articles or vehicles can be confiscated under section 47(A) of the M.P. Excise Act, 1915 during the pendency of criminal trial initiated against the offenders before the Judicial Courts?
(B) Whether, the dictum laid down by the apex Court in the matter of Madhukar Rao v. State of M.P., (2008) 14 SCC 624 is applicable to the cases registered under section 34(2) and the Confiscation proceedings under section 47(A) of the Act, 1915?
(C) Whether, the confiscation proceedings can go on parallel to the criminal proceedings and Collector can pass the order of Confiscation irrespective to the pendency of criminal case?
(D) Whether, the Coordinate Benches were justified in delivering the conflicting views without referring the matter under Chapter IV rule 8(3) of the High Court rules, 2008 and the conflicting view in the absence of any reference can be considered as binding precedent, in view of the doctrine of stare decisis?
(E) Whether, writ petition can be entertained against the order of confiscation, in view of judgment of Apex Court in the matter of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 and judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Alok Kumar Choubey v. State of M.P., (2021) 1 MPLJ 348, on the ground that Collector had no authority to pass any order of confiscation during the pendency of criminal case?”
3. W.P. 6542/2025 which is part of the same batch of petitions relating to M.P. Excise Act, 1915, in the said petition challenge is made to Constitutional validity of section 47-A of M.P. Excise Act, 1915 and has been heard analogously with this batch of petitions, as similar issues require to be considered and adjudicated.
4. In W.P. No. 23359/2024 which relates to Madhya Pradesh Govansh Vadh Pratishedh Adhiniyam, 2004 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “Cow Progeny Act”), a Single Judge of this Court has referred the following questions for adjudication by a larger Bench vide order dated 6.9.2024.
“(1) Whether in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in cases of Abdul Vahab (supra) (in particular para – 21 as quoted above) and Kallo Bai (supra), the confiscation proceedings under section 11(5) of the Adhiniyam, 2004 and rule 5 of rules, 2012 can be initiated and prosecuted simultaneously with the criminal trial before the Judicial Magistrate First Class for the offence punishable under section 9 of the Adhiniyam, 2010 ?
(2) Whether the District Magistrate can adjudicate violation of section(s) 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B of the Adhiniyam, 2004 before conclusion of trial by the Judicial Magistrate for offence punishable under section 9 of the Adhiniyam, 2004 ?
(3) Whether the writ petition can be entertained against the confiscation order passed by the District Magistrate under section 11(5) of the Adhiniyam, 2004 despite availability of equally efficacious alternate relief of appeal under Section 11A of the Adhiniyam and revision under Section 11B of the Adhiniyam, 2004 on the ground that the Collector cannot decide the violation of sections 4, 5, 6, 6A and 6B of the Adhiniyam, 2004, until decision of the cri
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
