# Bombay Intelligence Security (I) Ltd., Mumbai v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 12 ILRA 476
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-12-01
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 24559 of 2023
- **Bench:** Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, Prashant Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/bombay-intelligence-security-i-ltd-mumbai-v-union-of-india-ors-49607
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Supply of Security Personnel
-
Tender
-
No
advertisement
in
newspapers, but only in Government eMarketplace (GeM) Portal was made -
Effect - Validity of process challenged
- Held, Government e-Marketplace,
being the National Public Procurement
Portal,
acts
as
a
facilitator
for
conducting Forward Auction. Both the
Bidders
and
the
Seller/Auctioneer
must register on GeM portal - Main
objective of the GeM portal is to make
it
simpler
for
government
organizations to locate suppliers of
services and products that satisfy their
demands
for
quantity,
quality,
provenance, and time. Now all the
government tenders are uploaded in
the GeM portal and petitioner is well
aware of this system - Held, it is not
open for the petitioner to allege that
the tender was not published in the
newspaper and properly advertised,
the same should be cancelled. (Para
16, 18 and 19)
12 All. Bombay Intelligence Security (I). Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Union of India & Ors.
477
B. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Judicial review - Tender matter -
Bid condition - Scope of interference -
Held, terms of the invitation to tender are
not open to judicial scrutiny and the
courts cannot whittle down the terms of
the tender, as they are in the realm of
contract, unless they are wholly arbitrary,
discriminatory or actuated by malice - No
bidder has a right to challenge the bid
condition
and
it
is
open
for
the
Government
to
impose
any
kind
of
conditions in the bid. (Para 24 and 27)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
others (W.P. (C) 7034/2023 & CM APPL.
27372/2023)
decided
on
22.05.2023.
Paragraph 13 of the aforesaid judgement is
reproduced hereinbelow:-

"13. Arms licence is a creation of the
statute and the Licensing Authority is
vested with the discretion whether to grant
or not grant such a licence, depending
upon the fact situation in each case. All
lawyers/advocates who are appearing on
the criminal side for the accused or the
prosecution cannot claim a right to own an
arms license, inasmuch as this could result
in
issuance
of
arms
licenses
indiscriminately. The perceived weakness of
the State, which is one of the grounds,
which the Petitioner has urged for seeking
the arms license, if accepted, would result
in recognition of a right to own a fire arm.
This recognition leading to issuance of a
licence and unbridled owning of fire arms,
could also pose a threat to the safety and
security of the other citizens, which the
Licensing Authority would have to keep in
mind while allowing or rejecting the arms
license. The Licensing Authority has to
assess the threat perception and the
reasons for the request for a license which
has been given by the applicant concerned.
It is only after assessing the same that such
a license can be issued. An application by
an advocate merely based on the ground of
appearance on behalf of the accused
persons, in the opinion of this Court, would
not be sufficient to grant an arms license."

19. In the facts of this case, after
having perused the impugned order, this
Court is of the opinion that no interference
is called for in writ jurisdiction as the
refusal of grant of arms license is well
reasoned.

20. The petition is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 476
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA
TRIPATHI, J.
THE HON'BLE PRASHANT KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 24559 of 2023

Bombay Intelligence Security (I) Ltd.,
Mumbai ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Nisheth Yadav, Sri C.B. Yadav (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vibhanshu Srivastava, A.S.G.I., Sri Ashish
Mishra, Sri Pranav Mishra, Sri Siddharth Singhal,
Sri Anand Kumar Yadav

A. Civil Law - Supply of Security Personnel
-
Tender
-
No
advertisement
in
newspapers, but only in Government eMarketplace (GeM) Portal was made -
Effect - Validity of process challenged
- Held, Government e-Marketplace,
being the National Public Procurement
Portal,
acts
as
a
facilitator
for
conducting Forward Auction. Both the
Bidders
and
the
Seller/Auctioneer
must register on GeM portal - Main
objective of the GeM portal is to make
it
simpler
for
government
organizations to locate suppliers of
services and products that satisfy their
demands
for
quantity,
quality,
provenance, and time. Now all the
government tenders are uploaded in
the GeM portal and petitioner is well
aware of this system - Held, it is not
open for the petitioner to allege that
the tender was not published in the
newspaper and properly advertised,
the same should be cancelled. (Para
16, 18 and 19)
12 All. Bombay Intelligence Security (I). Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Union of India & Ors.
477
B. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Judicial review - Tender matter -
Bid condition - Scope of interference -
Held, terms of the invitation to tender are
not open to judicial scrutiny and the
courts cannot whittle down the terms of
the tender, as they are in the realm of
contract, unless they are wholly arbitrary,
discriminatory or actuated by malice - No
bidder has a right to challenge the bid
condition
and
it
is
open
for
the
Government
to
impose
any
kind
of
conditions in the bid. (Para 24 and 27)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of Cases cited:

1. UP Power Corporation Ltd. & anr. Vs Sant
Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd. & ors.; 2008 (2) SCC
777

2. Global Energy Ltd. & anr. Vs Adani Exports
Ltd. & ors.; (2005) 4 SCC 435

3. Directorate of Education & ors. Vs Educomp
Datamatics Ltd. & ors.; (2004) 4 SCC 19

4. Michigan Rubber (India) Ltd. Vs St. of Karn. &
ors.; (2012) 8 SCC 216

(Delivered by Hon'ble Prashant Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri C.B. Yadav, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Nisheeth
Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for respondent nos. 2 and 3, Shri
Anand Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for
respondent no. 4 and learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the Union of India.

2. The petitioner submits that they are
doing
business
of
supplying
trained
security guards. The respondent no. 2- LIC
floated a tender for Supply of Security
Personnels, and the petitioner being a
successful bidder, an agreement was
executed to supply security guards to
respondent nos. 2 and 3 for a period of
seven years, i.e. from 2007 to 2015.
Thereafter, from 2015 to 2022, the work
was allotted to some other company, this
contract was about to come to an end on
30th June, 2022. Subsequently, the tender
was extended by one year.

3. The respondent nos. 2 and 3
published a tender dated 06.05.2022 in
various newspapers on 26.05.2022 and was
also uploaded on the GeM Portal as it is
mandatory by the State to put all the
government tenders on the said portal.
During the pendency of the tender
proceedings, since respondent nos. 2 and 3
needed a security, so an agreement was
executed
between
the
petitioner
and
respondent nos. 2 and 3 on 31.08.2022 for
providing security guards for one year. The
petitioner is relying heavily on Clause 6 of
the agreement which is being reproduced
hereunder :-

"Period
of
Contract
-
Initial
agreement/contract shall be for a period of
one year effective from 01.09.2022 and
shall be renewed after 01 years on same
term and conditions on mutual consent of
both the parties for another 01 year
(maximum two such occasion on same
terms and condition). In case of contract
for security services not being renewed for
any reason, whatsoever, before expiry of
tenure i.e. 31.08.2023, the contract shall be
deemed to have renewed on same terms and
conditions for a period of 12 months

However, contract may be terminated
by the Corporation at any time with one
month notice, in case, services provided by
the Service Provider are found to be
unsatisfactory. However, if the Service
Provider for whatsoever reasons decides to
terminate the contract, he will have to
provide a minimum notice period of three
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
months. In the event of the earlier
termination by either parties to the contract
or expiry of the contract, the Service
Provider shall be obliged to continue
providing the services on the same terms
and conditions as provided in the contract,
till such time as Corporation is able to
make any alternative arrangement or
Corporation has agreed in writing to allow
the
Service
Provider
to
discontinue
earlier."

4. That, before the period of
agreement would come to an end, the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 published a fresh etender on 21.06.2023 inviting companies to
provide security guards. It has been argued
that in this tender, an additional condition
was added wherein, it became mandatory,
for the bidders to be empanelled with the
DGR and only those empanelled bidders
could have applied and because of this
arbitrary condition so imposed in the
tender, the petitioner was not able to
participate in the tender.

5. Aggrieved against the tender
conditions and the fresh tender, the
petitioner has filed the instant writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the following reliefs :-

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the bid
document dated 21.06.2023 issued by the
respondents.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent No. 3 to allow the petitioner to
work and further grant benefit of Clause (6)
of the agreement dated 31.08.2022."

6. To buttress the writ, the counsel for
the
petitioner
made
the
following
submissions ;

Firstly, there was no advertisement in
the newspapers and it was only advertised
in the government portal and the GeM
Portal would not be a right place to call for
the tender. Since no proper advertisement
was made, hence, tender inviting bid was
illegal.

Secondly, the tender conditions of
imposing a restriction on the bidders which
are not empanelled with the DGR, was
incorrect and illegal.

Thirdly, calling for the fresh tender
was in violation of Clause 6 of the
agreement dated 31.08.2022 which had a
clause of deemed renewal. Since there was
a clause of deemed renewal, hence, the
agreement ought to have renewed instead
of calling fresh tender.

Fourthly, the petitioner has invested a
huge amount of money in anticipation that
the tender would be extended and if the
tender is not extended, he will suffer a great
irreparable loss.

7. The learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner has relied on the judgement
passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the matter of U.P. Power Corporation
Ltd. And another v. Sant Steels & Alloys
(P) Ltd. And others, 2008 (2) SCC 777,
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held
that
the
Government
or
its
instrumentality should abide by their
commitments.

8. Per contra, Mr. Ashish Mishra,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent nos.2 and 3 submitted the GeM
Portal was introduced by the Ministry of
Commerce to provide transparency in the
government
procurement
tendering
process. The GeM Portal actually increases
the
efficiency,
transparency
in
the
procurement process. This portal was
launched in August, 2016 and procurement
12 All. Bombay Intelligence Security (I). Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Union of India & Ors.
479
through GeM portal has been made
mandatory by carrying on the necessary
amendment in General Financial Rules.
This is a process which eliminates human
interaction and also any possibility of
corruption and human errors. The GeM
portal also does the comparison process
and automatically choose by using an autorun method to find out the 'L-1'. Further,
the portal has a last mile outreaches and
reaches to all the vendors who could
possibly be interested in bidding for the
tenders. Further the bid inviting tender was
uploaded in GeM Portal as per the
directions
issued
by
the
Central
Government and the guidelines issued by
the Ministry of Finance vide order dated
11.04.2023 which provided that those
agencies which are empanelled in the list of
DGR would only be entitled to apply for
the tender. Hence, putting this condition in
the tender was mandatory.

9. Mr. Mishra further submitted that
the petitioner has no vested right for
renewal
of
the
contract
after
the
culmination of the agreement period. He
submitted that Clause 6 on which the
petitioner is harping, is on mutual consent.
There are no strict provision which lays
down that the term of the contract has to be
extended. The petitioner cannot derive any
benefit from Clause 6 of the agreement in
the absence of any consent from the
respondent nos. 2 and 3.

10. Mr. Mishra further submitted that
Ministry
of
Finance,
Department
of
Expenditure on Procurement Policy had
issued an Office Memorandum on 23rd
October,
2020
in
which,
it
was
categorically stated that procurement of
goods/service
through
Government
eMarketplace (GeM) will only be placed on
GeM Portal and the bidders will be
required to generate GeMAR&PTS ID in
all cases. It is, because of this direction, the
advertisement inviting bid was placed on
the GeM Portal. It is not open for the
petitioner to submit that he had no
knowledge or no publication was done in
the newspapers.

11. That in response to this tender, 68
bidders had applied to provide security to
respondent nos. 2 and 3. The petitioner,
herein, since was not empanelled with the
DGR and was not eligible to apply or
participate in the tender.

12. The petitioner cannot challenge
the conditions of bid unless and until the
same are introduced mala fidely, and in this
case, none of the conditions was arbitrary
or introduced with any mala fide intentions.

13. Mr. Mishra further submits that
the tender has already been awarded to a
third party- Uttar Pradesh Poorva Sainik
Kalyan Nigam Limited on 01st September,
2023 and they are continuing with the
work. Since third party right has been
created and the petitioner is ineligible to
apply in the bid, hence, it is not open for
them to challenge the tender conditions or
the tender and accordingly, the writ is not
maintainable.

14. We have carefully considered the
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the respective parties. With
their able assistance, we have perused the
pleadings, grounds taken in the petition,
annexures thereto and the reply filed by the
concerned parties.

15. It is apposite to consider the
introduction and functioning of GeM portal
in order to properly adjudicate the case in
hand. The Government e-Marketplace
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(GeM)
was
introduced
on
the
recommendations
of
two
Groups
of
Secretaries made to the Hon'ble Prime
Minister
in
January
2016.
They
recommended setting up of a dedicated emarket for different goods & services
procured or sold by Government /PSUs
besides reforming DGS&D, which was the
earlier procurement method. The GeM site
was created by the commerce ministry to
provide transparency in the antiquated
government procurement tendering process
used by government entities. Subsequently,
the Finance Minister in his Budget speech
for FY 2016-17, announced setting up of a
technology driven platform to facilitate
procurement of goods and services by
various Ministries and agencies of the
Government. With technical support of
National e-Governance Division (Ministry
of Electronics and Information Technology)
has developed GeM portal for procurement
of both Products & Services. The portal
was launched on 9th August 2016 by the
Commerce
&
Industry
Minister.
Procurement through GeM Portal has been
authorized by General Financial Rules by
making necessary changes in government
rules.

16.

Government
e-Marketplace
("GeM")
is
the
National
Public
Procurement Portal; an end-to-end online
Marketplace
for
Central
and
State
Government
Ministries/Departments,
Central & State Public Sector Undertakings
(CPSUs
&
SPSUs),
Autonomous
Institutions
and
Local
Bodies,
for
procurement of common use goods &
services. The portal is owned and managed
by GeM SPV which is a Section 8 (Non-
Profit) Company registered under the
Companies Act, 2013. GeM acts as a
facilitator for conducting Forward Auction
on GeM portal/ website. Both The Bidders
and the Seller/Auctioneer must register on
GeM portal according to the prescribed
procedure in order to participate in the
Forward Auction.

17. The Government of India,
Ministry of Defence, Department of Exservice Welfare had also issued the
guidelines dated 30th of June, 2021 for
operation/function of DGR empanelled exservicemen (ESM) security services. The
letter dated 30th of June, 2021 is
reproduced herein :-

"22911/2021/IFA

No. 28(75)/2020/D(Res-1)

Government of India

Ministry of Defence

Department of Ex-servicemen
Welfare

Sena Bhawan, New Delhi

Dated the 30th of June 2021

To '

Controller
General
of
Defence
Accounts (CGDA)

Ulan Batar Road,

Delhi Cantt-110 010

Subject:
Guidelines
for
operation/functioning
of
DGR
empanelled
Ex-Servicemen
(ESM)
security services.

Sir/Madam,

I am directed to refer to Ministry
of Defence, Department of Ex-Servicemen
Welfare (DESW) O.M. No. 28(3)/2012D(Res-I) dated 09.07.2012 and 16.01.2013.
The matter regarding review of these
guidelines in view of the feedback/inputs
received from various sources and the
decision of Government of India regarding
procurement of goods and services by all
Departments/Ministries
through
GeM
portal was under consideration of the
Government. Accordingly, guidelines for
12 All. Bombay Intelligence Security (I). Ltd., Mumbai Vs. Union of India & Ors.
481
operation
and
fünctioning
of
the
Directorate General Resettlement (DGR)
empanelled
Ex-Servicemen
security
services have been revised and new
Guidelines have been issued by DESW
bearing No 28(75)2020/D(Res-I) dated
13.05.2021
and
Corrigendum
No.
28(75)2020/D(Res-1) dated 23.06.2021.
Copies of the aforesaid guidelines dated
13.05.2021
and
Corrigendum
dated
23.06.2021 are enclosed.

2. In this regard, it is also informed
that Department of Public Enterprises vide
their OM No. DPE-GM-12/0001/2016GM-FTS-5410 dated 13.09.2018 have
already prescribed that all CPSEs requiring
manpower for security services will obtain
the same from DGR empanelled ExServicemen security service providers.
Action is also being taken by this
Department for immediate onboarding of
procurement of services from Directorate
General Resettlement empanelled security
services on the GeM portal.

3. It is, therefore, requested that all
IFAs/PIFAs may be advised to take note of
the revised guidelines to ensure that
procurement of security guards is done
only through security agencies empanelled
with Directorate General Resettlement.

Enci: As above.

(Suman Sharma)

Under Secretary to the Government of
India

Telefax: 2379 3365

Copy to:

FA(DS) - For appropriate action."

18. The procurement through GeM
eliminates human interface in vendor
registration, order placement and payment
processing, reducing down the chances of
any corruption and human error to a great
extent. Being an open platform, GeM offers
no entry barriers to bona fide suppliers who
wish to do business with the Government.
At
every
step,
SMS
and
e-Mail
notifications are sent to both buyer as well
as sellers Online, cashless and time bound
payment on GeM is facilitated through
integration with PFMS and the Bank. GeM
can encourage more vendors, including
small and medium enterprises to participate
in government procurement processes,
leading to increased competition and better
value for money for the government. The
main objective of the GeM portal is to
make
it
simpler
for
government
organizations to locate suppliers of services
and products that satisfy their demands for
quantity, quality, provenance, and time.
Now all the government tenders are
uploaded in the GeM portal and petitioner
is well aware of this system.

19. Thus, it is not open for the
petitioner to allege that the tender was not
published in the newspaper and properly
advertised, the same should be cancelled.
In fact, the petitioner had full knowledge of
this tender and this is why the same has
been challenged in this writ petition.

20. To deal with the second issue, it is
relevant to consider that the Ministry of
Finance (Government of India) had sent a
communication to the Chairman of the
respondent-Corporation as well as other
public sector undertakings and financial
institutions with specific directions that
"guidelines dated 13.05.2021 issued by the
Department of Ex-servicemen Welfare for
operation/functioning of DGR empanelled
ESM security services and subsequent
corrigendum
dated
23.06.2021
are
forwarded herewith for compliance of the
instructions contained therein." In view of
this direction, the additional condition was
imposed in the bid calling only those
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
bidders who were empanelled with the
DGR.

21. Since the introduction of the new
condition only those bidders who are
empanelled with the DGR would be
allowed to participate, this condition was
not
unilaterally
introduced
by
the
respondent nos. 2 and 3 but was introduced
on the behest of a Circular issued on
11.04.2023 by the Ministry of Finance,
Department of Financial Services. Hence, it
cannot be said that this tender condition
was introduced to oust the petitioner or
other similarly situated persons.

22. As far as third and fourth
argument of the petitioner are concerned,
we hold that there was a renewal clause in
the agreement but the same could only be
renewed by mutual consent. In the instant
case, there was no consent given by the
respondent or the respondent had ever
shown any interest in renewing the same
and in absence of any such inclination, it is
not open for the petitioner to ask for the
renewal as a matter of right. Any
investment made by the petitioner during
the agreement period was only for the
agreement period and cannot be said that
since petitioner has invested huge amount,
the tender should be extended in his favour.

23. The argument of the petitioner
that they should get benefit of Clause 6 of
the agreement is also not sustainable for the
simple reason, it only states that the
contract shall be renewed for one year only
on the mutual consent of the parties. Since
the respondent nos.2 and 3 had not agreed
to extend the contract, hence, the petitioner
cannot force them to extend the same in
their favour. The petitioner has no vested
right to get the agreement extended by one
year.

24. As far as the judicial review in the
tender matters are concerned, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Global
Energy Ltd. And another v. Adani
Exports Ltd. And others, (2005) 4 SCC
435, has held that terms of the invitation to
tender are not open to judicial scrutiny and
the courts cannot whittle down the terms of
the tender, as they are in the realm of
contract, unless they are wholly arbitrary,
discriminatory or actuated by malice.

25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the matter of Directorate of Education
and others v. Educomp Datamatics Ltd.
And others, (2004) 4 SCC 19, has held
that, the courts would not interfere with the
terms of the tender notice unless it was
shown
to
be
either
arbitrary
or
discriminatory or actuated by malice. While
exercising the power of judicial review of
the terms of the tender notice, the court
cannot say that the terms of the earlier
tender notice would serve the purpose
sought to be achieved better than the terms
of the fresh tender, unless it is of the
opinion that the terms were either arbitrary
or discriminatory or actuated by malice.

26. In the matter of Michigan
Rubber (India) Limited v. State of
Karnataka and others, (2012) 8 SCC
216, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that the basic requirement of Article 14 is
fairness in action by the State, and nonarbitrariness in essence and substance is the
heartbeat of fair play. These actions are
amenable to the judicial review only to the
extent that the State must act validly for a
discernible reason and not whimsically for
any ulterior purpose. The Court further held
that fixation of bid condition is entirely
within the purview of the executive and the
courts hardly have any role to play in this
process except for striking down such
12 All. Smriti Singh @ Mausami Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
483
action even proved to be arbitrary or
unreasonable.

27. In view of the aforesaid
judgements, it is not open for the petitioner
to challenge the bid condition and specially,
in the light of the judgement by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, no bidder has a
right to challenge the bid condition and it is
open for the Government to impose any
kind of conditions in the bid. The Court
cannot interfere on the bid conditions
unless the same is arbitrary or has been
introduced mala fidely. In this case, the
tender condition introduced in the tender
was in sync with the guidelines laid down
by the Government of India.

28. It is further held that as per the
government policy, all the government
tenders and procurement has necessarily to
be done through GeM portal. It is a
technology driven platform to facilitate
procurement of goods and services of
various
government
departments.
Introduction of such portal was actually a
need of the hour. This platform does the
comparison process and automatically
choose by using an auto-run method to
find the 'L-1'. This portal further
eliminates any interference in placing the
order and processing the payment. The
platform
actually
sends
digital
notifications to all the registered vendors
and to the buyers who intends to buy any
goods or services. It also ensures a
cashless time-bound payment directly to
the
bank.
This
also
increases
the
competition, whereby, the government
are able to procure the goods and services
at a very competitive rate. The steps
taken by the government to all the goods
and services procured through this portal
is in the best interest to both buyers and
sellers.

29. Moreover, the tender has already
been granted to a third party who are duly
qualified as per the bid conditions and have
started working with effect from 01st
September, 2023. The petitioner, herein,
has failed to raise any substantial question
which would call for adjudication by this
Court and has failed to make out any case
for quashing the tender and accordingly, the
writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 12 ILRA 483
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANJAY KUMAR SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 23148 of 2022

Smriti Singh @ Mausami Singh & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Shri Prakash Dwivedi, Sri Saurabh
Sachan

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Ajatshatru Pandey, Ms. Pratiksha
Rai

(A) Criminal Law - The Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Inherent
power,
Indian
Penal
Code,
1860
-
Section109 - Punishment of abetment if
the
act
abetted
is
committed
in
consequence
and
when
no
express
provision is made for its punishment,
Sections 494 - Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife - Hindu Marriage
Act, 1955 - Section 7 - Ceremonies for a
Hindu marriage - to constitute an offence
under Section 494 I.P.C., it is necessary
that the second marriage should have
been celebrated with proper ceremonies