advocatemmmohan
High Court
Sec.138 and sec.142 (b) of N.I.Act- Delay of 25 days in filing complaint after issuing a hand note – High court quashed the complaint as barred by limitation – Apex court held that since there is no opportunity for explaining delay as the complaint strongly believed that he filed complaint from statutory notice and since the accused not raised this plea during the trial of case and for the fist time raised before High court for quashing, the apex court granted time to file a separate application for condone the delay in the special circumstances of the case but not as precedent authorizing every one from not filing delay condone application = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1684 OF 2014 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL) NO. 8924 OF 2013 PAWAN KUMAR RALLI … APPELLANT VERSUS MANINDER SINGH NARULA … RESPONDENT = 2014 -Aug. Part- http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41820
Sec.138 and sec.142 (b) of N.I.Act- Delay of 25 days in filing complaint after issuing a hand note – High court quashed the complaint as barred by limitation – Apex court held that since there is no opportunity for explaining delay as the complaint strongly believed that he filed complaint from statutory notice and since … Continue reading
How appreciate the Evidence – Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) read with Sections 3, 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. – Trial court acquitted the accused – High court convicted the accused – Apex court held that The High Court is correct in its observation that it was not appropriate for the trial court to expect documentary evidence regarding acceptance of dowry as generally such a record would not be kept since it was not a commercial transaction. The High Court also appears to be justified in its observation that non production of the villagers to prove the dowry demand would not be fatal. and further held that Strangely, the High Court has discarded Mahazar drawn by PW-8 by giving a spacious reason viz. it was not an exhibited document before the Court, little realising that this was the document produced by the prosecution itself and even without formal proof thereto by the prosecution, it was always open for the defence to seek reliance on such an evidence to falsify the prosecution version. and further held that it is well established that if two views are possible on the basis of evidence on record and one favourable to the accused has been taken by the trial court, it ought not to be disturbed by the appellate court. We thus, find that there were no solid and weighty reasons to reverse the verdict of acquittal and to convict the appellant under the given circumstances. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court, holding that the appellant is not guilty of the charges foisted against him. = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1671 OF 2011 |RAMAIAH @ RAMA |…..APPELLANT(S) | | | | |VERSUS | | |STATE OF KARNATAKA |…..RESPONDENT(S) =2014 Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41816
How appreciate the Evidence – Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201 and 176 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) read with Sections 3, 4 and 6 (2) of the Dowry Prohibition Act. – Trial court acquitted the accused – High court convicted the accused – Apex court held that The High Court is correct in its observation that it … Continue reading
Sec.5 of Limitation Act – Sec.19 Of Revision powers of High court – Apex court held that we are of the opinion that the case of Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena (supra) was decided erroneously. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to Section 19 of the Act of 1983 =CIVIL APPEAL NO.3498 OF 2008 STATE OF M.P. & ANR. ……APPELLANTS Vs. ANSHUMAN SHUKLA ……RESPONDENT = 2014 Aug. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41818
Sec.5 of Limitation Act – Sec.19 Of Revision powers of High court – Apex court held that we are of the opinion that the case of Nagar Palika Parishad, Morena (supra) was decided erroneously. Section 5 of the Limitation Act is applicable to Section 19 of the Act of 1983 = “Whether Provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act … Continue reading
Order XXIII Rule 3 and Order III Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code- Arbitration proceedings – Arbitrator passed awards – challenged in District court – Compromise signed by Govt. Pleader on behalf of Govt. – Compromise decree was challenged by Govt. as Govt. Pleader is not authorised – High court set aside the decrees – Apex court held thatOrder XXIII Rule 3 and Order III Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code as held in Jineshwardas (D) through L.R.s and Ors. v. Smt. Jagrani and Anr., (2003) 11 SCC 372, has held as under: “If a power-of-attorney holder can enter into an agreement or compromise on behalf of his principal, so can counsel, possessed of the requisite authorization by vakalatnama, act on behalf of his client.” We find that in the present case the Government Pleader was legally entitled to enter into a compromise with the appellant and his written endorsement on the Memo filed by the appellant can be deemed as a valid consent of the Respondent itself. Hence the Counsel appearing for a party is fully competent to put his signature to the terms of any compromise upon which a decree can be passed in proper compliance with the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3 and such decree is perfectly valid.= CIVIL APPEAL NOS.7164-7166 OF 2014 (arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 23016-23018 of 2012) |Y. SLEEBACHEN ETC. |…..APPELLANT(S) | | | | |VERSUS | | |SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER |…..RESPONDENT(S) | |WRO/ PWD & ANR. | | = 2014 -Aug.part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41803
Order XXIII Rule 3 and Order III Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code- Arbitration proceedings – Arbitrator passed awards – challenged in District court – Compromise signed by Govt. Pleader on behalf of Govt. – Compromise decree was challenged by Govt. as Govt. Pleader is not authorised – High court set aside the decrees – Apex court held that Order XXIII Rule 3 and Order III Rule 1 of … Continue reading
Sections 376, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code – Non- mentioning of Name in FIR – not fatal – Last seen theory proved – Confessional statement of Accused was duly corroborated – Apex court held that Lower courts rightly convicted the accused – dismissed the appeal = CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.592 OF 2010 RAMESH ……APPELLANT Vs. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE ……RESPONDENT= 2014 -Aug.part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41800
Sections 376, 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code – Non- mentioning of Name in FIR – not fatal – Last seen theory proved – Confessional statement of Accused was duly corroborated – Apex court held that Lower courts rightly convicted the accused – dismissed the appeal = Whether the absence of name of the accused in the … Continue reading
LA Act – Deduction for amenities etc., at 40% – not correct -1/4 th correct – Apex court held that In our view, the High Court on the facts of the case was justified in taking into consideration the size of the plots which were exhibited for the purpose of comparison with the size of the plot acquired, but we are unable to uphold the cut of 40% which has been imposed by the High Court since the acquired lands are already within developed municipal limits and the deduction of 1/4th the market value made by the Reference Court is appropriate and liable to be restored.=CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7227-7257 OF 2014 [@Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.5161-5191 of 2001] Mohinder Singh & Ors. .. Appellants -vs- State of Haryana .. Respondents = 2014 – Aug.Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41807
LA Act – Deduction for amenities etc., at 40% – not correct -1/4 th correct – Apex court held that In our view, the High Court on the facts of the case was justified in taking into consideration the size of the plots which were exhibited for the purpose of comparison with the size of the plot acquired, but we are unable … Continue reading
Sec.138 of N.I.Act – Sec.27 of General clauses Act and Sec.114 of Evidence Act – Presumption of service of Statutory Notice under sec.138 – when it was given to correct address – then there is no need to plead specifically that the accused managed and got return the notice un served in the pleadings of complaint – High court erred in quashing the complaint basing on Shakti Travel & Tours which does not hold the field any more. – Apex court held that It is not necessary to aver in the complaint that in spite of the return of the notice unserved, it is deemed to have been served or that the addressee is deemed to have knowledge of the notice. Unless and until the contrary is proved by the addressee, service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. and set aside the High court order= CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1523 OF 2014 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.)No.8783 of 2013] M/s. Ajeet Seeds Ltd. … Appellant Vs. K. Gopala Krishnaiah … Respondent = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41790
Sec.138 of N.I.Act – Sec.27 of General clauses Act and Sec.114 of Evidence Act – Presumption of service of Statutory Notice under sec.138 – when it was given to correct address – then there is no need to plead specifically that the accused managed and got return the notice un served in the pleadings … Continue reading
Suit for Declaration of title and injunction -Status of Wife – with out production of marriage register of temple in which the marriage was taken place – producing other records does not confirm the status of wife – Legal heirs of deceased filed the suit against alleged second wife of deceased in respect of A-schedule ancestral properties of deceased and B – schedule properties of deceased first wife – Trail court decreed the suit – first appellant court decreed the suit against B schedule only and dismissed the suit against A schedule – in second appeal – High court reversed the first appellant court order and confirmed the order of trial court – holding that first defendant is not the wife of deceased Gounder – Apex court held that when there is perverse in the judgment of first appellant court – High court in second appeal interfere the same and further held that Highcourt rightly uphled that first defendant is not the wife of Gounder – except producing receipts from temple showing payment of marriage tax with out placing the marriage register before the court and mere producing other documents like voter list, bank books, mortgage deed etc., in which she was depicted as wife of Gounder not amounts to prove of marriage – non-producing birth certificates is also fatal to show that she was the wife and also her long co-habitation does not cloth her with the status of wife to claim property and as such dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgement of high court = CIVIL APPEAL NO.1103 OF 2004 Easwari … Appellant :Versus: Parvathi & Ors. … Respondents = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41758
Suit for Declaration of title and injunction -Status of Wife – with out production of marriage register of temple in which the marriage was taken place – producing other records does not confirm the status of wife – Legal heirs of deceased filed the suit against alleged second wife of deceased in respect of A-schedule ancestral … Continue reading
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (“the J.J. Act, 2000”) – whether the appellant was ‘a juvenile’ within the meaning of the term ‘juvenile’ as defined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (“the J.J. Act, 2000”) when the offence was committed and whether the plea of juvenility can be raised by him at this stage. Apex court held that Proviso to Section 7-A states that a claim of juvenility may be raised before any court and it shall be recognized at any stage, even after final disposal of the case, and such claim shall be determined in terms of the provisions contained in the J.J. Act, 2000 and the rules made thereunder even if the juvenile has ceased to be so on or before the date of commencement of the J.J. Act, 2000. = Kulai Ibrahim @ Ibrahim … Appellant Vs. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police B-1, Bazaar Police Station, Coimbatore. … Respondent = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41739
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (“the J.J. Act, 2000”) – whether the appellant was ‘a juvenile’ within the meaning of the term ‘juvenile’ as defined under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (“the J.J. Act, 2000”) when the offence was committed and whether the plea of juvenility can be raised by him … Continue reading
Sec.376 (f)/302/201 I.P.C.- all sentences order to run consecutively – Sec. 31 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code – Apex court held that trial and High court committed error in view of Sec. 31(2) of Cr.P.C.- Section 31 of Cr.P.C. relates to sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial. Proviso to Sub Section (2) to Section 31 lays down the embargo whether the aggregate punishment of prisoner is for a period of longer than 14 years. In view of the fact that life imprisonment means imprisonment for full and complete span of life, the question of consecutive sentences in case of conviction for several offences at one trial does not arise. Therefore, in case a person is sentenced of conviction of several offences, including one that of life imprisonment, the proviso to Section 31(2) shall come into play and no consecutive sentence can be imposed.=DURYODHAN ROUT … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA … RESPONDENT= 2014 – July. Part -http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41715
Sec.376 (f)/302/201 I.P.C.- all sentences order to run consecutively – Sec. 31 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code – Apex court held that trial and High court committed error in view of Sec. 31(2) of Cr.P.C.- Section 31 of Cr.P.C. relates to sentence in cases of conviction of several offences at one trial. Proviso to Sub Section (2) … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 