Right to privacy has been a subject matter and reiterated in the State of Andhra Pradesh and District Registrar and Collector, Hyderabad and another versus Canara Bank and others (2005) 1 SCC 496. However, the said right is not an absolute right. Right to information is a part of Right to Freedom of Speech and Expression. Section 8(1)(j) of the Act balances right to privacy and right to information. It recognizes that both rights are important and require protection and in case of conflict between the two rights, the test of over-riding public interest is applied to decide whether information should be withheld or disclosed.
(1) Euthanasia – Right to die – Legality – In 1973, petitioner, staff nurse at King Edward Memorial Hospital (KEM hospital), was sexually assaulted and choked, leaving her blind, deaf, paralysed and in a vegetative state – In 1999, ‘X’ as petitioner’s next friend filed a petition for euthanasia submitting that petitioner should be allowed to die with dignity as there was not the slightest possibility of any improvement in her condition – Whether petition filed by the ‘X’ regarding euthanasia for the petitioner could be allowed?
Service – Preparation of judgments through third party – Removal from service – Legality (i) Whether High Court was justified in dispensing with enquiry while passing order recommending appellant’s removal (ii) Whether order of removal passed by Governor was within his jurisdiction Constitution – Whether High Court could invoke Article 311(2)(b) of Constitution while passing recommendation for removal of subordinate judge.
The Union of India ought to have been careful particularly in filing this Civil Appeal because the Division Bench, by the impugned order, has dismissed the appeal before it on the ground of delay. It is a matter of deep anguish and distress that majority of the matters filed by the Union of India are hopelessly barred by limitation and no satisfactory explanations exist for condoning inordinate delay in filing those cases.
Rudra Appellant(s) versus Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & another Respondent(s) – Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — section 166 — claim petition under — the Tribunal concluded that merely because the appellant had consumed alcohol did not mean that the driver of the vehicle did not need to drive the vehicle cautiously. Thus, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle as a result of which the appellant sustained injuries. The Tribunal awarded total compensation amounted to Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 8% p.a. — the High Court enhanced the compensation to Rs.1,48,200/- with interest @ 6% p.a. — appeal for enhancement of compensation — the doctor assessed whole body disability at 29% and also stated that the nature of disability is such that the appellant cannot work as a coolie or do any other manual work — the impugned judgment of the High Court modified, awarding Rs.3,00,000/- with interest of 6% p.a. on the enhanced sum — appeal allowed — no costs.
whether Jaljira which is a product manufactured by the respondent herein is only an appetizer and is not a masala and therefore liable to sales tax at the rate of 10% and not 16% ….. There is no doubt that Jaljira is a drink. The contents of Jaljira is put into water and taken as digestive drink but when we look into the manner and method of preparation of the product Jaljira, we find that it is a mixture of different spices after grinding and mixing. Therefore, it is nothing but a Masala packed into packets of different nature/quantity and sold to the consumers. It would, therefore, for all practical purposes would come within the Entry No. 184 and it cannot be said that it would come under the residuary entry as held by the High Court.
Various benches of the high court have taken different stands on the issue of relationship between the employer and such workers. SC framed three questions for the larger bench. The first and main one is “whether a person who is employed by a contractor who undertakes contracts for the execution of any of the whole of the work or any part of the work which is ordinarily work of the undertaking is an employee under the Act?”
the ld. Magistrate viewed that imposition of a fine payable as compensation to the Appellant was sufficient to meet the ends of justice in the instant case. The High Court confirmed the order of the ld. Magistrate, with an increased fine — the Supreme Court held no interference with the order of the High Court, except to the extent of increasing the amount of compensation payable by a further sum of Rs.2 lakhs — appeal partly allowed.
The SC last week dismissed the appeal of Hyderabad Engineering Industries against the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh high court ruling that the transactions between several cities constituted inter-state sales, as contemplated under Section 3(a) of the Central Sales Tax Act. The company was part of Jay Engineering Works with head office in Delhi. It has other related companies with different names in different states.
The SC last week dismissed the appeal of Hans Steel Rolling Mill against the ruling of the excise appellate tribunal and stated that “importing of elements of one scheme of tax administration to a different scheme of tax administration would be wholly inappropriate as it would disturb the smooth functioning of that unique scheme. The time limit prescribed for one scheme could be completely unwarranted for another scheme and time limit prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act is no exception.”
