Caste no bar

The Supreme Court denounced the action of two brothers who resorted to various criminal acts and lodged false complaints of kidnapping against a person who had married their sister despite the fact that she belonged to a different caste. The brothers had also illegally occupied the husband’s shop. Instead of taking action against the brothers, the police had arrested the girl’s husband and his relatives. Directing the police to ensure the security of the victims, the Supreme Court held that inter-caste marriages were in national interest since they helped in the abolition of the caste system. The police were also directed to initiate criminal proceedings against the brothers (Lata Singh vs State of UP).

Give back their jobs

Some permanent employees of the Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board filed a writ petition challenging the Board’s decision to retrench 862 permanent employees by abolishing the posts on account of paucity of funds. The employees contended that such an act was not in compliance with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and similar industries were running profitably in Delhi and Allahabad. The Madras High Court held that such actions were in violation of the Act, and directed the Board to give back the jobs to the employees, It further held that the state is obligated to adopt innovative measures and allocate more funds to popularise these products and thus make the industry more profitable (A. Madheswaran vs State of Tamil Nadu).

Cheque mate

The accused filed an application before the high court for quashing the proceedings against him for the dishonour of a cheque. He contended that he should have been served a notice, thus giving him another chance to pay the amount. Dismissing the application of the accused, the Supreme Court held that as the notice was returned with the endorsement “party not in station, arrival not known,” the complainant was bound to file a complaint as the law requires him to do so within a specified time or else the complaint becomes time-barred. Also, a dishonest person may dodge the postman for the stipulated period so that the complainant loses the right to initiate proceedings (D.Vinod Shivappa vs Nanda Beliappa).

SOLON