SC: Under Order XXI Rule 102 CPC, A Transferee Pendente Lite Cannot Obstruct Execution of a Decree || SC: RTE Act promotes fraternity and equality by children of judges and vendors studying together || MP High Court: Aadhaar and Voter ID Cards are Not Definitive Proof of Date of Birth || Chhattisgarh HC: Second Marriage During Subsisting First Marriage Void Unless Custom Permits It || Allahabad HC: Will in Favor of Someone Does Not Affect Compassionate Appointment Based on Dependency || MP High Court: Mere Illness of a Family Member, If Improving, is Not Sufficient for Interim Bail || Bombay HC: ?25K Fine for Flying Kites With Nylon Manjha; Parents Must Ensure Responsible Conduct || Delhi High Court: Home State Must be the First Preference For Claiming Insider IFS Cadre Allocation || 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

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 :