Constitution of India — Arts. 247, 254, 366(10) and Sch. VII Entries 11-A & 46, List I Entries 77 & 78 and List II Entry 65 — Power of State Legislature to establish Special Courts: Orissa Special Courts Act, 2006 specifically dealing with offences under S. 13(1)(e) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and providing for Special Courts for trial of said offences, and while under PC Act, 1988 State in any case authority to appoint Special Judges in respect of all offences under PC Act, 1988, not violative of Art. 247. [Yogendra Kumar Jaiswal v. State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 183]
Competition Act, 2000 — S. 53-T — Appeal before Supreme Court — Settlement before Supreme Court: As parties amicably settled disputes by Joint Memo of Settlement dt. 10-11-2014 filed before Supreme Court agreeing that appellant would use certificate granted to it by Limca Book of Records as defined in certificate and shall not make any contrary statement. Appellant also agreed to use statement in its website/marketing communications: “Featured in Limca Book of Records, for record number of documented marriages online” and to file terms of settlement before Supreme Court and respondent agrees to close/withdraw complaint filed against appellant before MRTP Commission (now Competition Commission of India). Both parties also agreed to have no claim against each other ever on same ground mentioned in present appeal and or complaint, appeal disposed of in terms above. [Bharat Matrimony.Com (P) Ltd. v. People Interactive (I) (P) Ltd., (2016) 3 SCC 294]
Rent Control and Eviction — Eviction petition — Necessary party — Co-owner: Sister not a necessary party and her non-joinder not fatal to maintenance of eviction petition filed by brothers without joining co-owner sister as party. [Kasthuri Radhakrishanan v. M. Chinniyan, (2016) 3 SCC 296]
Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 — S. 6 — Non-return of dowry articles to bride by parents-in-law and other close relatives of husband: If the dowry amount or articles of married woman was placed in the custody of her husband or in-laws, they would be deemed to be trustees of the same. The person receiving dowry articles or the person who is in dominion over the same, as per Section 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, is bound to return the same within three months after the date of marriage to the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given. If he does not do so, he will be guilty of a dowry offence under this section. The section further lays down that even after his conviction he must return the dowry to the woman within the time stipulated in the order. [Bobbili Ramakrishna Raja Yadad v. State of A.P., (2016) 3 SCC 309]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 300 Thirdly — Case if falls under S. 300 Thirdly — Determination of: Ingredients to be established to determine if case falls under S. 300 Thirdly, are: (1) intention to cause injury concerned, and (2) whether said injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Under (1) the prosecution has to prove from the given facts and circumstances that the intention of the accused was to cause that particular injury. Whereas under (2) whether injury/injuries concerned were sufficient to cause death, is an objective enquiry and it is a matter of inference or deduction from the particulars of the injury. [Nankaunoo v. State of U.P., (2016) 3 SCC 317]
Evidence Act, 1872 — S. 9 — Test identification parade (TIP) — Evidentiary value of: No doubt, law with regard to importance of TIP is well settled, that identification in court is a substantive piece of evidence and TIP simply corroborates the same, but in present case non-holding of TIP was material. In this case where there was attack by four appellant-accused on forest officials, when they were intercepted by officials, while transporting stolen teakwood log, illegally, on bullock cart, after considering some undisputed facts like occurrence of incident at night, at a place with improper lighting and all appellants were not known to forest officers, except one, present at the place of incident, there should have been TIP conducted at the instance of investigating officer. Therefore, identification of appellants by prosecution witness in court, for the first time, after a gap of more than 2 yrs from the date of incident, is not beyond reasonable doubt; hence, the same should be seen with suspicion. [Noorahammad v. State of Karnataka, (2016) 3 SCC 325]
