25 September, 2016

No Maintenance for wife who left house without reason and cannot prove cruelty - Bombay High Court


BOMBAY HIGH COURT
(Aurangabad Bench)
Before :- V.R. Kingaonkar, J.
Criminal Revision Application No. 226 of 2002
NUTSHELL
Wife left matrimonial home and claiming maintenance from husband - Wife not restoring conjugal rights despite order of court - Not entitled to maintenance.

Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale Versus Khristina w/o Sanjay Bhosale dated 8.4.2008

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Gopal D. Kale, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. N.K. Choudhari, Advocate holding for Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate.

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 125 - Wife left matrimonial home within five months of marriage and claiming maintenance - Maintenance refused - Evidence showed that wife left matrimonial home under burden of domestic chores and did not restore conjugal rights despite order of court - Contention of wife that she lodged a complaint with police regarding cruelty by husband - She could not prove this fact - Wife's application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 2003(4) RCR(Crl.) 189 : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 444 relied. [Paras 10 to 13]

Case referred :
Deb Narayan Halder v. Smt. Anushree Halder, 2003(4) RCR(Criminal) 189 : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 444 : 2003(3) B Cr C 286.

Read full Judgment »

25 September, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 2

22 September, 2016

Right to Pension cannot be taken away when proceedings pending

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- K.S. Radhakrishnan and A.K. Sikri, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 6770 of 2013 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 1427 of 2009) with C.A. No. 6771 of 2013 [Arising out of SLP (C) No. 1428 of 2009]. D/d. 14.8.2013.

State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr. - Respondents

Important

Pension or Gratuity and even Leave Encashment cannot be taken away when proceedings pending

For the Appellants :- Mr. Amarendra Sharan, Senior Advocate, Mr. Anil K. Jha and Ms. Priyanka Tyagi, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Mr. J.S. Attri, Senior Advocate, Mr. Gaurav Sharma, Mr. B.K. Sharma, Ms. Priyanka Bharihoke, Ms. Sushma Suri and Mr. Rajiv Shankar Dvivedi, Advocates.

Supreme Court of India Judgments

JUDGMENT
A.K. Sikri, J. - Leave granted.
2. Crisp and short question which arises for consideration in these cases is as to whether, in the absence of any provision in the Pension Rules, the State Government can withhold a part of pension and/or gratuity during the pendency of departmental/criminal proceedings?

Read full Judgment »

22 September, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

21 September, 2016

Police must register FIR or face action : SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- P. Sathasivam, C.J.I., B.S. Chauhan, Ranjana Prakash Desai, Ranjan Gogoi and S.A. Bobde, JJ.
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008. D/d. 12.11.2013.

Lalita Kumari - Petitioner
Versus
Govt. of U.P. and others - Respondents

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

WITH S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5986 of 2006, S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 5200 of 2009, Criminal Appeal No. 1410 of 2011, Criminal Appeal No. 1267 of 2007 and Contempt Petition (C) No. D26722 of 2008 in Writ Writ  Petition (Criminal) No. 68 of 2008.
For the Petitioner :- Mrs. Mona K. Rajvanshi, AOR.
For the Petitioner in Crl. A. No. 1410/11 :- Mr. G. Sivabalamurugan, Advocate, Mr. Anis Mohamad, Advocate, Mr. L.K. Pandey, AOR.
For the Petitioner in Crl. A. No. 1267/07:- Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AOR.
For the Petitioner in SLP (Crl.) 5200/09 :- Mr. Abhijat P. Medh, AOR.
For the Petitioner in SLP (Crl.) 5986/09 :- Ms. Shalu Sharma, AOR.
For the Respondent :- Mr. Sidharth Luthra, ASG, Mr. C.D. Singh, AOR, Ms. Supriya Juneja, Mr. Gurmohan Singh Bedi, Mr. Arjun Dewan, Mr. Anandana Nanda, Mr. Mukesh Verma, Advocates, Ms. Sharmila Upadhyay, Mr. Debasis Misra, Mr. Kuldip Singh, Ms. Hemantika Wahi, Mr. Anil Shrivastav, Mr. Rituraj Biswas, Mr. Kamlendra Mishra, Mr. Khwairakpam Nobin Singh, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, Mr. Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, Mr. Naresh K. Sharma, Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Ms. Anitha Shenoy, Mr. Gopal Singh, AORs.
For the CBI :- Dr. Ashok Dhamija, Mr. T.A. Khan, Ms. Sonia Dhamija, Mr. B.V.B. Das, Advocates, Mr. D.S. Mahra, AOR, Mr. Anil K. Jha, AOR, M/s. Corporate Law Group, Ms. Sumita Hazarika, AOR, Mr. Satish Vig, AOR, Mr. Aruneshwar Gupta, AOR, M/s. Arputham Aruna and Co.
For the Andaman and Nicobar :- Mr. Balasubramanian, Mr. K.V. Jagdishvaran, Advocates, Ms. G. Indira, Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy, Mr. V.G. Pragasam, Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Mr. Ajay Pal, Mr. R. Nedumaran, Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee, Ms. A. Subhashini, Dr. Monika Gusain, Mr. S. Thananjaya, Mr. Sudarshan Singh Rawat, AORs.
For the State of M.P. :- Mr. Suryanarayana Singh, AAG, Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR, Mr. Shekhar, Advocate, Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR, Mr. M.T. George and Ms. Kavita K.T., Advocates.
For the State of Nagaland :- Mrs. K. Enatoli Sema and Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocates.
For the State of Haryana :- Mr. Manjit Singh, AAG, Mr. Amit Ludhaya, Mr. Irshad Ahmed, AOR.
For the State of Mizoram :- Mr. K.N. Madhusoodhanan and Mr. R. Sathish, Advocates.
For the Tamil Nadu :- Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, AOR, Ms. Vanita Chandrakant, Mr. A. Santa Kumaran and Mr. Abhisth Kumar, Advocates.
For the State of U.P. :- Ms. Archana Singh and Mr. Raman Yadav, Advocates.
For the State of U.P. in SLP (Crl.) No. 5986/06 :- Mr. D. Mahesh Babu and Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR.

Supreme Court of India Judgments

JUDGMENT
P. Sathasivam, CJI. - The important issue which arises for consideration in the referred matter is whether "a police officer is bound to register a First Information Report (FIR)

Read full Judgment »

21 September, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

19 September, 2016

An attesting witness of a sale deed is not bound by the contents of the sale deed - He can always deny its contents

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- M.M. Kumar, J. 
Regular Second Appeal No. 1201 of 2003. D/d. 3.7.2003

Ramesh Chander - Appellants
Versus
Budha Singh - Respondent

For the Appellants :- Shri B.R. Mahajan, 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. Kumar, J. - This is plaintiffs appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) challenging concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below holding that plaintiff- appellants have failed to prove that the portion of the compound was in joint ownership of Khazan Singh and defendant respondent Budha Singh.

Read full Judgment »

19 September, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

03 September, 2016

A young girl of about 15 years could not be expected to raise false allegation of rape

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Sham Sunder, J.
Crl. Appeal No. 344-SB of 1995. D/d. 23.1.2008.

Rajender Singh @ Tillu S/o Balwant Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Haryana - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Mr. Bipan Ghai, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- Mr. Kartar Singh, AAG, Haryana.

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

Sham Sunder, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 5.6.1995, and the order of sentence dated 6.6.1995, rendered by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Rewari, vide which it convicted the accused/appellant Rajender Singh, for the offence punishable under Sections 376 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years under Section 376 of IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-,

Read full Judgment »

03 September, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 1

29 August, 2016

Sale of co-parcenery property by father - Son filing suit for a declaration that sale deeds were void and not binding on the co-parcenery- He has to merely pay a fixed Court fee of Rs. 19.50

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :-R.V. Raveendran & R.M. Lodha, JJ.
Civil Appeal Nos. 2811-2813 of 2010, [Arising out of SLP [C] Nos. 6745- 47/2009]. D/d. 29.03.2010.

Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh - Appellant
Versus
Randhir Singh & Ors. - Respondents

For the Appellant in person :- Suhrid Singh.
For the Respondent :- Labh Singh Bhangu and Ms. Madhu Moolchandani, Advocates.

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

Supreme Court of India Judgments


JUDGMENT

R.V. Raveendran, J. - Leave granted.
The appellant filed a suit (Case No. 381/2007) on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Chandigarh for several reliefs. The plaint contains several elaborate prayers, summarizes below :
    (i) for a declaration that two houses and certain agricultural lands purchased by his father

Read full Judgment »

29 August, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

27 August, 2016

PH HC : Name of biological father cannot be replaced in birth certificate with name of step-father

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
CWP No. 3560 of 2016 (O&M). D/d. 04.05.2016.

Baljit Kumar - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others - Respondents

For the Petitioner :- Amit Verma, 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
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. - The interesting question arising in this petition is as to whether name of a step-father, on the asking of his step-son, can be entered in the Birth Certificate, replacing the name of the biological father, in terms of Section 15 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969.

Read full Judgment »

27 August, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

HC orders release of robbed Money to victim for USE and not on superdari

DELHI HIGH COURT

CRL.M.C. 3616/2010

RITESH JINDAL ..... Petitioner
versus
STATE/GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI ..... Respondent

For Petitioner: Mr. Ashwani Goel, Advocate
For Respondent: Mr. Sunil Sharma, APP for ASI Shiv Kumar

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

CORAM:
JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

Delhi High Court, Delhi Judgments

O R D E R
This petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order dated 3rd November 2010 passed by learned trial court refusing to release the robbedamount in favour of complainant. The complainant was robbed of a sum of Rs.4 lac, out of that Rs.3.43 lac were recovered from the accused persons and this amount of Rs.3.43 lac was lying in the court.

Read full Judgment »

by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

Conduct DNA tests in all Rape Cases - MP HC tells Police and Doctors

MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT (Jabalpur)

Before :- Atul Sreedharan, J.
MCRC No. 6476 of 2016. D/d. 4.5.2016.

Raja Burman @ Rahu - Applicant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh - Respondent/State

For the Applicant :- Kaustubh Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent :- K.S. Patel, learned Panel Lawyer.

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

Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Judgments

JUDGMENT
Atul Sreedharan, J. - Mr. Kaustubh Singh, learned counsel for the applicants.
Mr. K.S. Patel, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State.
2. This is an application U/s.439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.26/16 registered at P.S. Burhar, Shahdol for offences U/s.376, 305/34 of I.P.C. and Section 5/6 of POCSO Act.

Read full Judgment »

by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

Mismatch of signatures on Cheque - Provisions of Section 138 are attracted

UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT

Before :- U.C. Dhyani, J.
Criminal Misc. Application No. 840 of 2010. D/d. 24.2.2014.

Virendra Singh Bisht - Petitioner
Versus
Sahil Trading Company - Respondent

For the Petitioner :- R.P. Nautiyal, Sr. Adv., assisted by Prashant Khanna.
For the Respondent :- Lokendra Dobhal, Advocate.

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

Cases Referred :
Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chander, (2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 986.
Laxmi Dyechem v. State of Gujarat, 2012 Vol 11 Scale 365 : (2012) 13 SCC 375.
M/S Sahil Trading v. Virendra Singh, Criminal Case No. 865 of 2010.
Rajkumar Khurana v. State of (NCT of Delhi), (2009) 6 Supreme Court Cases 72.
Satish Kumar Mishra v. M/s Woodcastle SPA & Resorts, 2013 (2) U.D., 116.
Vinod Tanna v. Zaher Siddiqui, 2002 (45) ACC 389.

Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Judgments

ORDER
U.C. Dhyani, J. - The applicant, by means of present petition moved under Section 482 Cr. P.C., seeks to quash the summoning order dated 18.06.2010 (annexure-6) as well as the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 865 of 2010, M/S Sahil Trading v. Virendra Singh, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh.
2. The complainant (respondent herein) filed a criminal complaint case against the accused (applicant herein) in the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate, Rishikesh. Statement of the complainant was recorded under Section 200 Cr.P.C.

Read full Judgment »

by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

07 August, 2016

Dishonour of cheque given as security - Accused liable under Sections 138 of NIA

PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

Before :- Anita Chaudhary, J.
CRM-A No. 3-MA of 2011 (O&M) with CRA-AS No. 195 of 2015. D/d. 21.12.2015.

Anjali Kukar - Petitioner
Versus
M.M. Lal Chhabra - Respondent

For the Appellant :- In Person.
For the Respondent in Persion :- N.S. Bains, Advocate.

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

Cases Referred :
Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450.
Jagan Nath Goyal v. The Branch Manager, LIC, Sangrur, RSA-90-2011.
Lt. Col. I.S. Chouhan v. Sant Ram, CRA-S-183-SBA-2007.
Rangappa v. Mohan, 2010(3) RCR (Criminal) 164.
S.K. Goyal v. Chittar Mal Mool Chand, CRM-A-738-MA-2012.
Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. v. Kashmir Singh, CRM-A-665-MA-2015.

Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh Judgments


JUDGMENT
Anita Chaudhary, J. - Delay condoned. Leave to appeal is granted. CRA-AS- 195-2015 has been assigned by the Registry.
CRA-AS-195-2015
This appeal is by a lawyer who is pitted against her client. The cheque given by the client had bounced which led to the filing of a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. It would be apposite to give the necessary facts to appreciate the contentions raised on merits. MML Chhabra and his son were named in FIR No.

Read full Judgment »

07 August, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 0

30 July, 2016

Judges can't act as tape recorders,but protect witnesses - They have to monitor the proceedings in aid of justice in a manner that something, which is not relevant, is not unnecessarily brought into record

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before :- Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 175 of 2007. D/d. 12.3.2008.

Himanshu Singh Sabharwal - Petitioner
Versus
State of M.P. and Ors. - Respondents

(With Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 173 of 2006)

For more detail about this judgment,
please contact our helpline number : 094177-67177
or visit our contact us page.
IMPORTANT
There is frequent turning of witness as hostile due to threats, coercion etc. - State should take legislative measures to protect witnesses so that trials are not reduced to mock trials as in movies.
Prosecution or defence failed to produce some evidence which was necessary for just disposal of case - Court has power to call for evidence under Section 311 Cr.P.C. Criminal trial should be a search of truth and not a bout over technicalities - Trial is to protect innocent and punish guilty.

For the Appellant :- Vivek K. Tankha, Senior Advocate with Anurag Sharma, Prashant Kumar and Arjun Harkauli, Advocates.
For the Respondents :- Soli J. Sorabjee, Raju Ramachandran, Uday U. Lalit, Senior Advocates with Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Vinay Navare Virender Parmar, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, K.L. Janjani, Krishnan Venugopal, D. Bharat Kumar, Anand, Ms. M. Indrani, Abhijit Sengupta, Bhupendra Yadav, Sharabh Samsheri, P.K. Kaurav, Vishwa Pal Singh and Shibashish Misra, Advocates.

Cases referred :
Mrs. Maneka Sanjay Gandhi v. Ms. Rani Jethmalani, (1979(4) SCC 167).
G.X. Francis v. Banke Behari Singh, AIR 1958 SC 309.
Mohan Lal v. Union of India, 1991(3) RCR(Criminal) 182 : (1991 Supp (1) SCC 271).
Zahira Habibulla H. Sheika v. State of Gujarat, 2004(2) RCR(Criminal) 836 : 2004(3) Apex Criminal 46 : (2004(4) SCC 158).

Supreme Court of India Judgments

JUDGMENT
Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. - Transfer Petition (Crl.) No. 175 of 2007 has been filed by one Himanshu Singh Sabharwal who is the son of late Prof. H.S. Sabharwal.

Read full Judgment »

30 July, 2016 by Puneet Batish Advocate · 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