01 May, 2016

Legal profession is not a commercial activity - Running of office by an Advocate in a building cannot be termed as Commercial activity - Electricity rates fixed for Commercial user cannot be charged

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- Arijit Pasayat & H.K. Sema, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 1065 of 2000. D/d. 24.8.2005

Chairman, M.P. Electricity Board and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Shiv Narayan and Anr. - Respondents

For the Appellants :- Sakesh Kumar and D.K. Sinha, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Ex-parte.

Supreme Court of India

JUDGMENT


Arijit Pasayat, J. - An interesting question is raised in this appeal i.e. whether the legal profession is a commercial activity or is it a trade or business. The Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') and its functionaries charged the respondent No. 2-Advocate for electricity consumption at the rate applicable for commercial consumers. The demand was questioned by filing a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court which by the impugned judgment held that the legal profession does not involve a commercial activity and, therefore, the rate applicable to commercial consumers was not applicable to him. The judgment is questioned by the Board in this appeal.

Read full Judgment »

01 May, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

30 April, 2016

Practicing Advocates can join LLM Courses as Regular Students without suspending the practice

Here's a Good News for the Advocates practicing in India. Earlier, the Advocates who used to be interested in joining LLM courses in the mid of practice had to get their license suspended for the time period of their study.

Bar Council of India (BCI) have passed a resolution dated 23.1.2010 at the counsel meeting held on 18th and 20th december 2009, where it was decided that the Practicing Advocates can join in LLM Courses as Regular Students without suspending the practice.
Practicing Advocates can join LLM Courses as Regular Students without suspending the practice

Read full Judgment »

30 April, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 4

24 April, 2016

Four Important Things to Remember While Filing for Divorce in New York State [Sponsored]

Four Important Things to Remember While Filing for Divorce in New York State

Here are four important things to remember while filing for divorce in New York State that can help you organize your divorce case efficiently.

Divorce Cases - Important points to remember
There Are Four Common Grounds for Divorce in New York State
Generally speaking, there are five common grounds for divorce in New York State. They include:

1. Cruel or inhumane treatment by one or both spouses.
2. Spousal abandonment that lasts for at least a year.
3. Long-term imprisonment of at least one spouse that is expected to last for at least 3 years.
4. Adultery that is verified by at least one outside witness.

Understanding these grounds for divorce is important. This is the case because it can help you determine the best way to file for a divorce.

Read full Judgment »

24 April, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

13 April, 2016

Joint Family Property - Alienation by Karta - Though coparceners have no right to obstruct alienations but they have right to challenge alienations made by Karta

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Before :- Bela M. Trivedi, J.
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 55 of 1984. D/d. 23.07.2013.

Digvijay Singh - Appellants
Versus
Sant Ram - Respondents

For the Appellants :- G.K. Garg, Sr. Advocate with Vijay Singh Jangid, Advocates.
For the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 :- Sudhanshu Kasliwal, Sr. Advocate with R.N. Vijay, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 4 :- Jitendra Mitruka, Advocate.

For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.

Cases Referred :
Anar Devi v. Parmeshwari Devi, AIR 2006 SC 3332.
Baljinder Singh v. Rattan Singh, (2008) 16 SCC 785.
Balmukund v. Kamla Wati, AIR 1964 SC 1385.
Budh Ram v. Bansi, (2010) 11 SCC, 476.
Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur v. Chander Sen, (1986) 3 SCC 567.
Gopal Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1983 RLW, 475.
Gurupad Khandappa Magdum v. Hirabai Khandappa Magdum, AIR 1978 SC 1239.
Man Singh v. Ramkala, (2010) 14, SCC 350.
Nagappan v. Ammasai Gounder, (2004)13 SCC 480.
Nagesh Bisto v. Khando Tirmal, AIR 1982 SC 887.
Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shamarao, AIR 1956 SC 593.
Prasad v. V. Govindaswami Mudaliar, (1982) 1 SCC, 185.
R. Kuppayee v. Raja Gounder, (2004) 1 SCC 295.
Rani v. Santa Bala Debnath, (1970) 3 SCC, 722.
Ravindra Kumar v. State of Assam, AIR 1999 SC 3571.
Shiba Prasad Singh v. Rani Prayag Kumari Debi, 59 Ind application 331 : (AIR 1932 PC 216).
Sital Prasad Singh v. Ajablal Mander, ILR 18 Pat 306 : (AIR 1939 Pat 370).
Narayan Bal v. Sridhar Sutar, (1996) 8 SCC 54.
State of U.P. v. Rajkumar Rukmini, AIR 1971 SC 1687.
Sunil Kumar v. Ram Prakash, AIR 1988 SC 576.
T. Venkata Subbamma v. T. Rathamma, AIR 1987 SC 1775.
Thakur Gopal Singh v. CWT, Rajasthan, 1973 WLN 14.
Thimmaiah v. Ningamma, (2000) 7 SCC 409.
Valliammai Achi v. Nagappa Chettiar, AIR 1967 SC 1153.

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Judgments

JUDGMENT
Bela M. Trivedi, J. - The present appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC by the appellants-plaintiffs arises out of the judgment and decree dated 23.2.84 passed by the Addl. District Judge, Court No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur

Read full Judgment »

13 April, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

09 April, 2016

Court has power to re-examine witness who had already been examined for just decision of case

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- G.P. Mathur & A.K. Mathur, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 834 of 2006 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5459 of 2004). D/d. 14.8.2006

U.T. of Dadra & Haveli & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Fatehsinh Mohansinh Chauhan - Respondent

For the Appellants :- Ranjit Kumar, Sr. Advocate, Dipesh Mehta, Santosh Paul, Abhisekh K. Rao, Praji K. J. and M.J. Paul, Advocates.
For the Respondent :- Arun Jaitley, Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Advocates, Shivaji M. Jadhav, Himanshu Gupta and Brij Kishor Sah, Advocates.

For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.

Cases referred :
Ram Jeet v. State, AIR 1958 All. 439.
State of West Bengal v. Tulsidas Mundhra, 1964(1) Crl. L.J. 443.
Jamatraj Kewalji Govani v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1968 SC 178.
Mohanlal Shamji Soni v. Union of India, 1991(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 182 : AIR 1991 SC 1346.
Rajendra Prasad v. Narcotic Cell, 1999(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 440 : (1999) 6 SCC 110.
P. Chhaganlal Daga v. M. Sanjay Shaw, (2003) 11 SCC 486.

Supreme Court of India Judgments

JUDGMENT
G.P. Mathur, J. - Leave granted.
2. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 8.10.2004 of Bombay High Court by which the revision preferred by the respondent was allowed and the order dated 12.8.2004 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa, summoning Shri S.P. Marwah, the then Collector, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa under Section 311 Cr. P.C. was set aside.

Read full Judgment »

09 April, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

04 April, 2016

Police not registering FIR against all Accused - Court can Summon a Person NOT even named in FIR by Police

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- P. Sathasivam, C.J.I., B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi, S.A. Bobde, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No. 1750 of 2008. D/d. 10.1.2014.

Hardeep Singh
versus
State of Punjab

With Criminal Appeal No. 1751 of 2008.
Manjit Pal Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab and another - Respondents
With Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9184 of 2008.
Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria and another - Appellants
Versus
State of Gujarat and others - Respondents
With Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7209 of 2010.
Rajendra Sharma and another - Appellants
Versus
State of M.P. and another - Respondents
With Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5724 of 2009.
Ravinder Kumar and another - Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
With Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5975 of 2009.
Tej Pal and another - Appellants
Versus
State of Haryana and others - Respondents
With Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9040 of 2010.
Juned Pahalwan - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and another - Respondents
With Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 5331 of 2009.
Rajesh @ Sanjai - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and another
With Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 9157 of 2009.
Ramdhan Mali and another - Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan and another - Respondents
With Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 4503-4504 of 2012.
Tej Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Supreme Court of India Judgments

For the Appellants :- Mr. Abhisth Kumar, Mrs. Kamaldeep Gulati, Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Mr. S.R. Setia, Ms. G. Madhavi, Mr. K.V. Mohan, Mr. Anis Ahmed Khan, Mr. Sanjai Kumar Pathak, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, Mr. R.K. Gupta, Mr. S.K. Gupta, Mr. M.K. Singh, Mr. Shekhar Kumar and Mr. Bihari Trigunayal, Advocates.

Read full Judgment »

04 April, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

27 March, 2016

Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration seeking the sale deed in question to be null and void being executed without payment of consideration - Ad valorem court fee is not required to be paid

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Raj Mohan Singh, J.
CR No. 3824 of 2014. D/d. 03.12.2015.

Tarun Kumar And Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Pankaj Kapoor And Ors. - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Munish Bhardwaj, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.2 :- Ashok Kumar, Advocate.

For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.

Cases Referred :
Rambai v. Kapoori, 2014 Volume 4 R.C.R (Civil) 376.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Judgments

JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. (Oral) - Plaintiffs have challenged the order dated 25.04.2014 vide which application filed by defendant No.1 under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC has been accepted and the plaintiffs have been directed to make good deficiency of court fee on or before 28.05.2014 failing which the Court shall proceed in accordance with law.

Read full Judgment »

27 March, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

19 March, 2016

Wife living separately and refused to live with husband in spite of his offer to maintain her and her children - Wife living separately without just cause, not entitled to maintenance

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

G.L. Gupta, J.
Crl. Revision No. 179 of 1997. D/d. 22.1.1999.

Bheekha Ram - Petitioner
Versus
Goma Devi and others - Respondent

S.D. Vyas, for the petitioner.
G.K. Vyas, V.R. Mehta, P.P., for the respondents.

For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.
Cases referred :-
Shahzad Bano v. Sher Mohammad, 1990 RCC 57.
Bhanwari Bai v. Mohd. Ishaq, 1984 MLR 234.
Budharam Kosta v. Pitrabai, 1984 MLR 62.
Raghbir Singh v. Krishna, 1982 MLR 307.
Associated Cement v. Keshvanand, AIR 1998 Supreme Court 596.

Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Judgments

JUDGMENT
G.L. Gupta, J. - This revision by the husband has been preferred against the revisional order D/-17.3.1997 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner whereby he set aside the order D/-22.4.1995 passed by the Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Bikaner refusing maintenance to the respondents Nos. 1 to 3.
2. The short facts of the case are that Goma Devi for her and on behalf of her two minor sons filed an application under Section 125, Criminal Procedure Code against her husband-Bheekha Ram (petitioner in this revision) for maintenance.

Read full Judgment »

19 March, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

18 March, 2016

Suit for specific performance filed on the same cause of action - Bar of Order 2, Rule 2 CPC will not be operative, the first suit on the same cause of action having been withdrawn with the leave of the Court

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- M.M.S. Bedi, J.
CR 3319 of 2012. D/d. 18.3.2015.

Parminder Singh and another - Petitioners
Versus
Amarjit Singh and others - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Rakesh Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1 :- Aman Bansal, Advocate.

For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Judgments

JUDGMENT
M.M.S. Bedi, J.(Oral) - This is defendants' revision petition against the order dated April 10, 2012, annexure P-1 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala, dismissing the application for rejection of plaint under Order 7, Rule 11 CPC. Copy of the plaint annexure P-2 placed on the record shows that the plaintiff- respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of agreement of sale dated May 15, 2000 seeking relief for execution of the sale deed with regard to the property mentioned in heading of the plaint and also sought relief of permanent injunction to restrain the petitioners to sell the property in dispute to any other person.

Read full Judgment »

18 March, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

15 March, 2016

Cheque is drawn as a self cheque - Cheque being a self cheque would attract Section 138 of the Neotiable Instruments Act

KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

Before :- Anand Byrareddy, J.
Criminal Revision Petition No. 926 of 2009. D/d. 17.7.2013.

B. Sarvothama - Petitioner
Versus
S.M. Haneef - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- Shri. H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Shri. K. Shashikanth Prasad, Government Pleader.

For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.

Cases Referred :
A.K.Hameed v. Appakutty, AIR 1969 Ker.189.
Amolak Textiles v. Uphar Fashions, 2009(3) Kar.L.J. 696 : ILR 2009 Kar. 628.
Farhat Hussain Siddiqui v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2010 Cri. L.J. 1213 (All.).
Forbes Campbell & Co. v. the Official Assignee of Bombay, (1925)27 Bom.LR 34.
M/s Intech Net Limited v. State, 2007 Cr.LJ 216 (AP).
Mahesh Goyal v. S.K. Sharma, 1997 Cri. L. J. 2868 (P and H).
Michael Kuruvilla v. Joseph J. Kondody, 1998(2) Andh. L.D. (Cri.) 957 (Ker.).
Prabhakaran v. Natesan, 1998(4) Crimes 554)(Mad.).
Raza Ali v. Rahat Hussain, AIR 1933 All 754.
V. Rama Shetty v. N. Sasidaran Nayar, 2008 Cri. L.J. 4297 (Kar.).

Kerala High Court, Ernakulam Judgments

ORDER
Anand Byrareddy, J. - The petitioner was the accused before the trial court. The complainant had alleged the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881(Hereinafter referred to as the Neotiable Instruments Act, for brevity.)

Read full Judgment »

15 March, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

10 March, 2016

It is not obligatory on part of trial court to permit cross-examination of PW-1 before summoning accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. - No illegality in impugned order

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT

Before :- Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J.
Criminal Revision No. 1558 of 2007. D/d. 14.10.2014.

Ram Prakash Singh and Another - Revisionists
Versus
State of U.P. and Another - Opposite Party

For the Revisionists :- Abhishek Srivastava, Abhishek Tripathi, Akhilesh Srivastava, B.K. Tripathi, Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate, P.S. Chauhan, Rajesh Yadav, Advocates.
For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.
Cases Referred :
Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria v. State of Gujarat, 2014 (2) JIC 523 (SC).
Brindaban Das v. State of West Bengal, 2009 (66) ACC 273.
Dharam Pal v. State of Haryana, 2013 Crl.L.J. 3900.
Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2009 (5) Supreme Today page 779.
Hardeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2014 (1) JIC 539 (SC).
Michale Machado v. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2000 (3) SCC 262.
Mohd. Shafi v. Mohd. Rafiq, 2007 (58) ACC 254.
Ram Pal Singh v. State of U.P., 2009 (1) Supreme Today page 649.
Ram Singh v. Ram Niwas, 2009 (65) ACC 971.
Sarabjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 2009 (66) ACC 32.
State of U.P. v. Shakti Singh, S.T. No. 01/2007.

Allahabad High Court Judgments

JUDGMENT
Mrs. Ranjana Pandya, J. - This criminal revision has been preferred against the order dated 17.05.2007 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge (F.T.C. Court No. 2), District Maharajganj summoning the revisionists under Section 319 Cr.P.C. in S.T. No. 01/2007 (State of U.P. v. Shakti Singh & others), case crime no. 523 of 2006, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 504 and 506 I.P.C., Police Station Pharenda, District Maharajganj.

Read full Judgment »

10 March, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

09 March, 2016

Complainant died - Accused does not have an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses - Said statement is inadmissible in evidence

PATNA HIGH COURT

Before :- Sheema Ali Khan, J.
Criminal Appeal No. 14 of 1998. D/d. 24.3.2009.

Rajendra Thakur - Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar - Complainant

For the Appellant :- Rashid Izhar, Abdul Kalam, MD. Sarsuddin, Advocates.
For the Complainant :- Shashi Chandra Pandey, Advocate.
For the State :- Lala Kailash Bihari, Sr. Adv., and APR.

Patna High Court, Bihar Judgments

JUDGMENT

1. The sole appellant has been convicted under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years.
2. The prosecution case as made out in the complaint case filed by Sanjivan Thakur is that one Rajendra Thakur alias Sharma came to his residence on 23.6.1991 at 11 a.m. and claimed that he was the son of the sister's husband (SARHU) of the complainant and asked the complainant's wife to accompany him to attend the marriage of his niece which was to be held on 23.6.1991 at village Bihta.

Read full Judgment »

09 March, 2016 by Puneet Batish · 0

©2011-2015 Geek Upd8. Some content is copyrighted to Puneet Batish and may not be reproduced on other websites.
Free Legal Advice on Phone