Amritsar

In this case, as vehicle has been sold by complainant during pendency of appeal which was filed in the year 2007 and decided in the year 2012, complainant ceases to be a consumer under C.P. Act and complaint is liable to be dismissed.

published in  http://164.100.72.12/ncdrcrep/judgement/00131015115541960RP262212.htm NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION                                                 NEW DELHI          REVISION PETITION NO. 2622 OF 2012 (From the order dated 16.04.2012 in Appeal No. 302/2007 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh)                                                             M/s. Honda Cars India Ltd. Plot No. A-1, Sector 40/41, Suraj Pur – Kasna Road, Greater Noida Indl. Dev. Area Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. – 201 306                                          …Petitioner/Opp. Party … Continue reading →

JURISDICTION AND POWERS OF GRAMA SABHAS / NYAYALAYAS – NEWLY FORMED FOR QUICK DISPOSAL OF CASES =whether in view of Sections 4(2), 5, 44-51, 71 and 77 etc. of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 which give complete powers to the Gram Panchayat to take cognizance of criminal cases, accept complaints, conduct enquiries, summon witnesses, proceed with the trial, pass orders of conviction, sentence and compensation, the impugned proceedings initiated under the IPC is sustainable? On the other hand, it is the stand of the respondent-State that in view of serious allegations against the appellants who cheated the complainant’s son and committed fraud by taking his money, in spite of Section 44(3) of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the prosecuting authority is entitled to proceed under the provisions of the IPC. = (i) There is no bar for investigating any offence by the police including the offences mentioned in the Schedule II of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994. (ii) The investigation would include the power to arrest and the ordinary procedure under the Code will govern the entire proceedings. (iii) Till the stage of completion of investigation, Gram Panchayat has no jurisdiction at all. (iv) After the report of police under Section 173, the Magistrate shall transfer the case for trial to Gram Panchayat or to any other subordinate court to him. (v) Unless a case is transferred to Gram Panchayat under Section 45 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, the ‘Gram Panchayat’ does not get any jurisdiction over the said case/investigation unless the offence is one mentioned in Section 47(3) of the said Act. (vi) However, it is open to any person/complainant to directly approach the Gram Panchayat by submitting a written complaint. In that case also, if it is a cognizable offence, there is no bar for the police to investigate the matter. = Under these circumstances, we hold that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the investigation is to be conducted by the police authorities only and the offence of Section 420 IPC where the allegations are of a serious nature and the appellants has duped of Rs. 30 lakhs from the complainant, should be tried by the regular criminal court only and not by the Gram Panchayat.

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40486 Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6746 of 2012) Sharanjit Kaur & Anr. …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent(s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 812 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9690 of … Continue reading →

PUBLISHED IN http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40486 Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 811 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 6746 of 2012) Sharanjit Kaur & Anr. …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent(s) WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 812 OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 9690 of … Continue reading →

Avalon Resorts (P) Ltd. and Holiday Solutions = Although the word ‘Red’ has not been defined anywhere, yet according to the opposite party the word ‘Red’ means summer season commencing from 15th week of the year and continues till 33rd week of every year. – It is difficult to fathom as to why the petitioner should pay the maintenance allowance when he has not utilized such facility. One is supposed to pay the allowance when the thing is utilized by him. The termination of the notice on this ground is illegal. -The opposite parties are entitled to get the rent @10000/- per year from 2001 to 2012. The total comes to Rs.1,10,000/-. It is made clear that the complainant can avail the facility for the next 21 years from today. Before availing the opportunity, he can inform the opposite parties. The complainant is also entitled to rent out the said apartment for one week to any person for which the respondent will not raise any objection but in that case, the complainant shall be responsible for the maintenance. The complainant will not pay any maintenance allowance for the year when he does not utilized the facility for a particular year but otherwise he must pay the maintenance allowance. We, therefore, modify the judgment and direct the petitioner to pay Rs.11,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of this complaint till its realization. The complainant can avail the facility for the next 21 years. Accordingly, both the revision petitions are disposed of.

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI   REVISION PETITION NO.  4318 OF  2012  (Against the order dated 31.08.2012 in First Appeal No. 1280 of 2007 of the Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh) Shri Harwinder Singh Randhawa S/o Shri Sohan Singh R/o E/293, Ranjit Avenue Amritsar (Punjab)                                              … Petitioner Versus 1. Avalon Resorts (P) Ltd. Empire Estate, Mehrauli–Gurgaon Road Sultanpur, New Delhi-110030 2. Holiday Solutions, GH-14/34, Ist Floor, Pashchim Vihar New Delhi-110063                                         … Respondents … Continue reading →

what is cruelty apex court defined=No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of “mental cruelty”. The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive: (i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty. (ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party. (iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable. (iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty. (v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse. (vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty. (vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty. (viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not 10 be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. (x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty. (xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty. (xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty. (xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty. (xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.”

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5010 OF 2007 Gurbux Singh …. Appellant (s) Versus Harminder Kaur …. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P. Sathasivam, J. 1) The appellant, a Principal in ITI College, Sirhali, Amritsar, has approached this Court against the judgment and … Continue reading →