SUPREME COURT

• CRIMINAL

Nanhar & Ors. v. State of Haryana (Decided on 11.06.2010) MANU/SC/0418/2010

Dying declaration- Section 302/149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Circumstantial evidence - Deceased allegedly killed by poison with liquor by Appellants - No injuries found to show resistance - Poison neither found in bottles nor in glass but on earth - Dying declaration not signed -Whether dying declaration was written by the deceased?

Held, deceased who was heavily drunk and had taken poison could not be stated to be mentally fit to write dying declaration. Dying declaration were not proved to be of deceased. Chain of circumstances being incomplete, judgment of High Court upholding conviction by Trial Court is set aside.

• SERVICE

Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht & Ors. (Decided on 03.06.2010) MANU/SC/0410/2010

Selection list for posts of Civil Judge - For quashment of order of High Court - An Application issued by the Commission for posts of Civil Judge, (Junior Division) with clarification that the reservation policy adopted by the State in favour of SC/ST/OBC and horizontal reservation in favour of handicapped, and women etc. belonging to Uttaranchal would be applicable - Whether the horizontal reservation applied as vertical reservation in favour of reserved category candidates?

Held, the horizontal reservation applied as vertical reservation in favour of reserved category candidates is not in consonance with law. Order of High Court dismissed. Appeals allowed.

HIGH COURT

• Excise LAWS

BOMBAY HIGH COURT

Bilpower Ltd. A company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 v. The Union of India (UOI) through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue (Decided on 04.05.2010) MANU/MH/0522/2010

Writ - Natural Justice - Show Cause Notice was issued for withholding CENVAT credit facility for a period of three months, whereas, the Authority passed the Order withholding the same for six months - Authority who issued the notice to the Petitioner, did not pass the Order - Whether the Impugned Order requires to be set aside in the facts and circumstances of the case

Held, Petitioner shall be heard and an appropriate reasoned Order will be passed again in accordance with law following principles of Natural justice. Order not to be treated as a precedent. Impugned Order set aside. Petition disposed.

Goradia Special Steels Ltd. and Anr. v. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. (Decided on 09.03.2010) MANU/MH/0395/2010

Pre-deposit - Penalty - Non-compliance - Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies Act (SICA), 1985 - Tribunal directed pre-deposit to the extent of 50 per cent of the penalty - As Petitioner No. 1 has not complied with the Order, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal and the Revenue attached the properties of the Petitioners-Company to recover outstanding dues - Petitioner No. 1 was declared as sick company under the SICA - Whether properties of Petitioner No. 1 could be attached

Held, penalty is not recoverable from Petitioner No. 1 so long as the Company was under the umbrella of Section 22 of the SICA. Properties of the Petitioner No. 1 could not be attached. Impugned Orders set aside. Writ Petition disposed of.

• CIVIL LAWS

DELHI HIGH COURT

O.S. Bajpai v. The Administrator (Lt. Governor of Delhi) & Ors. (Decided on 28/05/2010)

PIL filed - Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986 alleged as not been implemented in the manner it should have been implemented - Whether said Act has not been implemented?

Held, even after 21 years the Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986 has not been implemented in the manner it should have been implemented. It is now the stand of both the State Government and the Central Government that instead of overhauling the Delhi Apartment Ownership Act, 1986 to fit in with the present situation, a new legislation could be brought in. Petition disposed.