Posts

Showing posts from October, 2017

Delhi High Court - A Life Sentence Means THe Actual Life Imprisonment For The Entire Life Of The Convict

Life sentence is not limited to either 14 years, or 20 years, or even 25 years. A life sentence means the actual life imprisonment for the entire life of the convict. The same may be curtailed by the State by premature release. However, that is the discretion of the State Government to be exercised on the advice of the SRB (Sentence Review Board). The SRB itself has to arrive at its opinion on the aspect of premature release on sound principles. Click Here To Read More

Delhi High Court - THe Litigating Parties Can not Enter Into A Compromise Which Affects The Interest Of Third Parties

It is an elementary principle of law that no relief can be granted in a suit against a party not impleaded as a defendant. The litigating parties cannot enter into a compromise which affects the interest of third parties or casts a liability on them. It is the duty of a Judge to ensure that a compromise effected is legal and valid and does not adversely affect the rights of third parties or cast a duty or a liability on them. Click Here To Read More

Delhi High Court – A Life Sentence Means

Life sentence is not limited to either 14 years, or 20 years, or even 25 years. A life sentence means the actual life imprisonment for the entire life of the convict. The same may be curtailed by the State by premature release. However, that is the discretion of the State Government to be exercised on the advice of the SRB (Sentence Review Board). The SRB itself has to arrive at its opinion on the aspect of premature release on sound principles. Click Here To View Full Text Of Judgement

Delhi High Court - Relationship Of Employee and Employer

During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the workman/petitioner was asked to show if there is any document to prove that the petitioner was ever paid any monies by the respondent or any other document to prove that there was an employer–employee relationship between the workman/petitioner and the employer/respondent, but no affirmative answer has come forth. There is nothing on record to presume that such relationship ever existed. The onus of proving the relationship of employee and employer between the petitioner and the respondent lies upon the petitioner workman, this onus has not been discharged by him. Click Here To Read Full Text Of Judgement