advocatemmmohan
Appellate Court
Grant of Bail at Appeal Stage – High court granted bail – Apex court held that both the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision filed by both the parties are pending before the High Court which means that the convictions of the respondents are not confirmed by the appellate court. Secondly, it is an admitted fact that the respondents had been granted bail earlier and they did not misuse the liberty. Also, the respondents had conceded to the occurrence of the incident though with a different version. =CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1664 OF 2014 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(Crl.) NO. 2930 OF 2013) SUNIL KUMAR APPELLANT Vs. VIPIN KUMAR AND ORS. RESPONDENTS = 2014 Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41815
Grant of Bail at Appeal Stage – High court granted bail – Apex court held that both the Criminal Appeal and Criminal Revision filed by both the parties are pending before the High Court which means that the convictions of the respondents are not confirmed by the appellate court. Secondly, it is an admitted fact that the respondents had … Continue reading
Sec.389 of Cr.P.C. – Granting bail at appellant stage in post conviction stage in sever offences – whether the public prosecutor has to file his objections in writing – if not filed it can be treated as No Objection and should be endorsed in the order – Apex court held that a. The appellate court, if inclined to consider the release of a convict sentenced to punishment for death or imprisonment for life or for a period of ten years or more, shall first give an opportunity to the public prosecutor to show cause in writing against such release. b. On such opportunity being given, the State is required to file its objections, if any, in writing. c. In case the public prosecutor does not file the objections in writing, the appellate court shall, in its order, specify that no objection had been filed despite the opportunity granted by the court. d. The court shall judiciously consider all the relevant factors whether specified in the objections or not, like gravity of offence, nature of the crime, age, criminal antecedents of the convict, impact on public confidence in court, etc. before passing an order for release. Admittedly, no such opportunity was granted to the State as contemplated under the first proviso of Section 389 Cr.PC in these appeals. Therefore, the impugned orders to the extent of release of the private respondents on bail are set aside. The High Court shall consider the matters afresh.= CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1516 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 261 of 2013] Atul Tripathi … Appellant (s) Versus State of U.P. and another … Respondent (s) = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41781
Sec.389 of Cr.P.C. – Granting bail at appellant stage in post conviction stage in sever offences – whether the public prosecutor has to file his objections in writing – if not filed it can be treated as No Objection and should be endorsed in the order – Apex court held that a. The appellate … Continue reading
Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, read with Section 114 of IPC – Powers of Appellant court – when to interfere with acquittal orders – Trial court acquitted the all accused due to delay in FIR about 2 hours , serious contradictions in the evidence of eye witnesses – non-blood stained weapons – High court set aside the acquittal order of the lower court and punish the accused under sec.324 /34 to pay fine Rs.10,000/- for each count – Apex court set the order of High court and framed principles – general principles regarding powers of appellate Court while dealing with an appeal against an order of acquittal emerge; (1) An appellate Court has full power to review, re-appreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded; (2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power and an appellate Court on the evidence before it may reach its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law; (3) Various expressions, such as, ‘substantial and compelling reasons’, ‘good and sufficient grounds’, ‘very strong circumstances’, ‘distorted conclusions’, ‘glaring mistakes’, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate Court in an appeal against acquittal. Such phraseologies are more in the nature of ‘flourishes of language’ to emphasize the reluctance of an appellate Court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the Court to review the evidence and to come to its own conclusion. (4) An appellate Court, however, must bear in mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court. (5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.” =CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1381 of 2014 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.)NO.4018 OF 2012) C.K. DASEGOWDA & ORS. …..APPELLANTS VERSUS STATE OF KARNATAKA …..RESPONDENT = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41768
Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 307, read with Section 114 of IPC – Powers of Appellant court – when to interfere with acquittal orders – Trial court acquitted the all accused due to delay in FIR about 2 hours , serious contradictions in the evidence of eye witnesses – non-blood stained weapons – High court set aside the acquittal order of the lower court … Continue reading
Sec.2 , 3 of Grants Act – Cantonment board – resumption of land – wrongly claimed that the grant is free from holds – mere entry in GLR survey never confirm title – suits for recovery of resumed property – Apex court held that The plaintiffs-respondents have only right with regard to the structure built on the suit premises. The Union of India-appellants have a right for resumption of the suit premises, as evident from evidence on record as discussed above. This issue was not properly appreciated by the Trial Court, the Appellate Court and the High Court which also failed to notice the appellants’ right under Section 2 and 3 of the Government Grants Act, 1895.- we set aside the impugned judgment dated 25th November, 2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Civil Revision Application No.272 of 2009, the judgment dated 15th January, 2009 passed by the First Appellate Court and judgment and decree dated 9th June, 2005 passed by the Trial Court. Civil Suit No.695/1999 on the file of Small Causes Court, Pune is dismissed.= UNION OF INDIA & ANR. … APPELLANTS VERSUS DINSHAW SHAPOORJI ANKLESARI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 (May.Part) http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41515
Sec.2 , 3 of Grants Act – Cantonment board – resumption of land – wrongly claimed that the grant is free from holds – mere entry in GLR survey never confirm title – suits for recovery of resumed property – Apex court held that The plaintiffs-respondents have only right with regard to the structure built on the suit premises. The Union … Continue reading
Sec.59,100 of T.P. Act Charge – Deposit of Title Deeds – Mortgage – mere undertaking not to sale the property till the discharge of loan with out registration does not create any charge over the properties of JDr against the loan – the decree is only simple money decree – Suit for cancellation of decree obtained by wife against Jdr – is liable to be dismissed even though the decree is collusive one as the Finance Corporation does not hold Registered Charge over the properties = =Haryana Financial Corporation …. Appellant Verses Gurcharan Singh & Anr. …. Respondents = Published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41086
Sec.59,100 of T.P. Act Charge – Deposit of Title Deeds – Mortgage – mere undertaking not to sale the property till the discharge of loan with out registration does not create any charge over the properties of JDr against the loan – the decree is only simple money decree – Suit for cancellation of decree … Continue reading
Retrial – the trial court acquitted the case after full trial on benefit of doubt without considering the medical evidence, and due to non speaking of evidence clearly , due to hostile witnesses and due to improvements- Appellant court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for fresh trail on petition – High court in revision set aside the retrial order and also set aside the main order of appeal which found prima faice case, with out considering and assessing the medical evidence – Apex court on petition for retrial held that no retrial can be order and confirmed the view of high court – Apex court on SLP against revision held that High court committed wrong in allowing the revision with out considering material as to why the lower appellant court set aside the acquittal order – Apex court remanded the case to high court for fresh disposal on this point = MARY PAPPA JEBAMANI ..Appellant Versus GANESAN & ORS. ..Respondents = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41055
Retrial – the trial court acquitted the case after full trial on benefit of doubt without considering the medical evidence, and due to non speaking of evidence clearly , due to hostile witnesses and due to improvements- Appellant court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for fresh trail on petition … Continue reading
Or. 47 rule 1 C.P.C. = Review of it’s own judgement basing on fresh documents & fresh thoughts – not correct = Or.1, rule 10 impleading a party with out asking for any relief against him is maintainable as the very purpose of impleading is only for having full and final settlement and to avoid multiple proceedings = N.ANANTHA REDDY Petitioner(s) VERSUS ANSHU KATHURIA & ORS. Respondent(s) = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41043
Or. 47 rule 1 C.P.C. = Review of it’s own judgement basing on fresh documents & fresh thoughts – not correct – Review of it’s judgement arose only in case of patent errors occurred in earlier judgement but not on fresh out look of the case – High court confirmed the order of lower court when … Continue reading
By reason of the Limitation Act, 1963 the legal position as was obtaining under the old Act underwent a change. In a suit governed by Article 65 of the 1963 Limitation Act, the plaintiff will succeed if he proves his title and it would no longer be necessary for him to prove, unlike in a suit governed by Articles 142 and 144 of the Limitation Act, 1908, that he was in possession within 12 years preceding the filing of the suit. On the contrary, it would be for the defendant so to prove if he wants to defeat the plaintiff’s claim to establish his title by adverse possession. =Md. Mohammad Ali (Dead) By LRs. RESPONDENT: Sri Jagadish Kalita & Ors. = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=19379
By reason of the Limitation Act, 1963 the legal position as was obtaining under the old Act underwent a change. In a suit governed by Article 65 of the 1963 Limitation Act, the plaintiff will succeed if he proves his title and it would no longer be necessary for him to prove, unlike in a … Continue reading
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 = whether acts committed prior to the coming into force of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and which fall within the definition of the term ‘Domestic Violence’ as informed in the Act could form the basis of an action.” = SARASWATHY …. APPELLANT VERSUS BABU ….RESPONDENT = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40988
whether acts committed prior to the coming into force of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and which fall within the definition of the term ‘Domestic Violence’ as informed in the Act could form the basis of an action.” … Continue reading
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Agreement to sell land – Non-execution of – Suit for specific performance – Grant of decree and plea of seller that time was essence of contract rejected – However, High Court setting aside the decree – Validity of – Held: Recital in the agreement that earnest money would be forfeited upon failure to execute agreement within stipulated period makes it clear that parties never intended time to be essence of contract – More so, seller did not prove his plea – Thus, decree granted by trial court upheld – Buyer directed to deposit balance consideration amount and seller would execute sale deed. = PETITIONER: Balasaheb Dayandeo Naik (Dead)through LRs & Ors RESPONDENT: Appasaheb Dattatraya Pawar = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/helddis.aspx
Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Agreement to sell land – Non-execution of – Suit for specific performance – Grant of decree and plea of seller that time was essence of contract rejected – However, High Court setting aside the decree – Validity of – Held: Recital in the agreement that earnest money would be forfeited … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 