SC: Hindu Daughter-In-Law Widowed After Her Father-In-Law’s Death is Entitled to Maintenance || SC: Vendor Remains a Necessary Party in Specific Performance Suits Even After Transferring Property || Raj HC: Having Different Age Criteria For Contractual and Regular Appointments is Unconstitutional || Delhi HC: Registered Property Title Prevails over Claims Based on Oral Family Settlements || Gauhati HC: Only A Family Court Can Grant A Divorce under Muslim Law, Not A Civil Judge || Del HC: Courts Cannot Compel Lawyers to Disclose Sources of Documents Filed on Clients' Instructions || SC Explains When Shares Received After Company Amalgamation are Taxable as Business Income || SC: Excavators, Dumpers Etc Used Within Factories aren’t Motor Vehicles For Road Tax Purposes || SC: Complaints Alleging Fraud under Companies Act Can Be Filed Only By SFIO, Not By Private Parties || SC: Preventive Detention Cannot Override Bail and Requires Proof of a Threat to Public Order

Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau and ors v. Neyyattinkara P. Nagaraj and ors - (High Court of Kerala) (09 Nov 2015)

Justice not only done but also seen to be done: Kerala HC

Criminal

Kerala High Court held that the Director of Vigilance can give ‘timely directions’ while conducting investigation, but not after. Observations and findings on merits of the court below on the investigation below were set aside. The matter pertained to a Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau of Kerala investigation into an alleged demand of Rs. 5 crores to renew bar licences by Kerala’s Finance Minister. The Court cautioned against the possibility of an improper investigation by State a department when the accused endured as a Minister in the government.

Tags : VIGILANCE MINISTER IMPROPER INVESTIGATION

Share :