In a robbery case where the accused were convicted by the trial court, the defence pointed out that as the identification parade was held two-and-a-half months after the arrests were made, the reliability of such identification was doubtful. Rejecting the contention, the Uttaranchal High Court held that while an early identification parade was preferable, in the present case, where the witnesses had a chance to see the robbers clearly, it was possible to remember their features. Hence, the identification parade could not be doubted on grounds of delay (Umed Singh vs State of Uttaranchal).
In a suit filed for eviction for non-payment of rent and bona fide requirement of premises, the wife of one of the plaintiffs, who had a power of attorney, deposed on their behalf. The tenant contended that a power of attorney holder could not depose on the plaintiffs’ behalf. The Bombay High Court held that in this case, since the power of attorney holder was also the wife of a plaintiff, resided on the premises, and had personal knowledge about the requirement, she could depose on their behalf (Mangesh Govind Patane vs Nagesh Vasant Kadam).
The Kerala Hotels and Restaurants Association along with some hoteliers challenged an order issued under the provisions of Kerala Foodstuffs (Display of Prices by Catering Establishments) Order fixing the upper limits of prices of food items according to a hotel’s category. The Kerala High Court held that in the absence of any law, no upper limit could be fixed on prices of food items. It was not as if the hotels were getting their ingredients at subsidised rates and hence, making greater profits (Kerala Hotels & Restaurants Association vs State of Kerala).
SOLON
