In case the petitioner is not satisfied with the fixation of MRP by the Commissioner and wishes to withdraw from the tendering process within three days of MRP being fixed, the respondents shall refund the entire earnest money deposit made by the petitioner in respect of bid, said the Delhi High Court
The bench of Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari observed that without considering the facts of the case, "the question as to whether the allegations in the FIR or complaint prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused, cannot be decided".
The Apex Court in 2:1 majority verdict in which Justices Nariman and Gavai struck down only Part IX B introduced by the 97th constitutional amendment to deal with cooperative societies, while Justice KM Joseph struck down the entire amendment.
The tribunal said, "The affidavit of the State Government must clearly indicate the District-wise work completed with regard to laying of pipeline, including the position of issuance of RoU, works that are in the pipeline, expected timeline of completion and yet to commence."
The revisional application is disposed of with a direction that the Magistrate will be at liberty to record the plea of the petitioner through his advocate and his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, may also be conducted in terms of Section 313(5) of the Code.
It is now well-settled law that only a relative of a husband by blood or marriage is liable for prosecution under Section 498A IPC. Girlfriend or concubine, is not connected by blood or marriage, is not a relative of the husband for the purpose of Section 498A IPC,” the Court opined.
The Supreme court bench led by Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice B.R. Gavai reserved verdict on the plea for contempt action against political parties which failed to declare and publicize criminal antecedents of their candidates in the Bihar election.
The Kerala High Court on Tuesday directed the State Government to submit a report as to whether the petitioner has been violating any provision of law by keeping birds as pets.
Prima facie, it appears to be a classification not founded on intelligible differentia nor it is found to have a rational relation/nexus to the object sought to be achieved by such classification, namely, containment and further spread of COVID-19 pandemic, noted the apex court.