Admissibility of Illegally obtained evidence

 The courts have taken the view there is no law in force that excludes relevant evidence on the ground that it was obtained under an illegal search or seizure, or was otherwise illegally obtained. (Shyni Varghese v.  State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 147 (2008) DLT 691; M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra,  AIR 1954 SC 300; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ramesh C. Sharma, (2005) 12 SCC 628; R.M. Malkani v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 1 SCC 471; State v.  Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru, (2005) 11 SCC 600)

 The Supreme Court has gone to the extent f holding that “it will be wrong to invoke the supposed spirit of our Constitution for excluding such evidence….  It, therefore, follows that neither by invoking the spirit of our Constitution nor by a strained construction of any of the fundamental rights can we spell out the exclusion of evidence obtained on an illegal search.” (Pooran Mal v. Director of Inspection (Investigation), (1974) 1 SCC 345)

Court interference in Tender - eligibility criteria

Appellants: Directorate of Education and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Educomp Datamatics Ltd. and Ors.

AIR2004SC1962, 2004 2 AWC(Supp)1789SC

As a matter of policy Government took a conscious decision to deal with one
firm having financial capacity to take up such a big project instead of
dealing with multiple small companies which is a relevant consideration
while awarding such a big project. Moreover, it was for the authority to set
the terms of the tender. The Courts would not interfere with the terms of
the tender notice unless it was shown to be either arbitrary or
discriminatory or actuated by malice. While exercising the power of judicial
review of the terms of the tender notice, the Court cannot say that the
terms of the earlier tender notice would serve the purpose sought to be
achieved better than the terms of tender notice under consideration and
order change in them, unless it is of the opinion that the terms were either
arbitrary or discriminatory or actuated by malice.

Disposal of files in 4 days

2009 27 LCD 1040

--------------------------------------
Sent from handheld device

Civil Court has jurisdiction to try suit for cancellation of deeds

AIR 1996 All 90

Section 44A of the Land Acquisition Act

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/948313/

 

In our view Section 44A prohibits transfer of land. Section 44B of the Land Acquisition Act provides for land not to be acquired under this Part except for certain purposes for private companies other than Government Companies. Sections 44A and 44B of the Land Acquisition Act are inserted by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1962. The amendments are intended to safeguard the public interest. Therefore, Sections 44A and 44B of the Land Acquisition Act are intended to safeguard the public interest. Section 44A accordingly puts an interdict to transfer by sale, gift or lease or otherwise any acquired land without permission of the appropriate Government. "Transfer" means passage of a right from one to another. Transfer may take place in three different ways. It may be by virtue of an act done by a transferor with an intention, as in the case of a conveyance or a gift or; secondly, it may be by operation of law as in the case of forfeiture, bankruptcy, intestacy or thirdly, it may be an involuntary transfer effected through court, as in execution of a decree for either enforcing a mortgage or for recovery of money due under a simple money decree. In view of the words, "sale, gift or lease", it seems the statute contemplates a transfer inter vivos.

Policy guidelines issued by govt are binding on it

(2011) 7 SCC 493
--------------------------------------
Sent from handheld device

Land Acquisition - acquired for one purpose can be used for another

respondents are not barred from utilizing the land for any other purpose
than the one for which the land was required. It is well settled principle
laid down in a catena of judgments. In the case of Union of India v. Jaswant
Rai Kochhar MANU/SC/0358/1996 : (1996) 3 S.C.C. 491, it has been held that
land acquired for public purpose may be used for another purpose. Similar
view has been taken in the cases of Ravi Khullar v. Union of India
MANU/SC/1906/2007 : (2007) 5 S.C.C. 231; State of Maharashtra v. Mahadeo
Deoman Rai alias kalal MANU/SC/0471/1990 : (1990) 3 S.C.C. 579; and Bhagat
Singh v. State of U.P. MANU/SC/0774/1998 : (1999) 2 S.C.C. 384