//
archives

surinder singh

This tag is associated with 5 posts

Custody of Child =no relief could be granted to the appellant in the present proceedings given her conduct in removing Anand from U.S.A. in defiance of the orders of the Court of competent jurisdiction. – the duty of Courts in all countries to see that a parent doing wrong by removing children out of the country does not gain any advantage by his or her wrongdoing.= The facts narrated above would clearly indicate that the mother is singularly responsible for removal of the child from the jurisdiction of U.S. Courts. In view of the above, we are constrained to pass the following order:-= The directions issued by the High Court in the impugned order are upheld with the following additions and modifications:- Direction No.(iv) of the High Court shall be substituted by the following : “(iv) The petitioner shall make necessary arrangements for the stay of the respondent No.7 and the child in suitable accommodation in a locality according to her status prior to the dissolution of marriage for a period of three months on their landing in USA.” Direction No.(vi) – Prior to making any travel arrangements for the 7th respondent and Anand, the petitioner shall move the Court of Competent Jurisdiction in USA for withdrawal of the bailable warrants issued against the respondent No.7 to enable her to attend the custody proceedings in the US Courts. Direction No.(viii) – Upon the bailable warrants having been withdrawn, the petitioner shall personally escort respondent No.7 and Anand from India to the USA. 32. With these observations, the judgment of the High Court is upheld and the Criminal Appeals No.934-936 of 2013 @ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 10606-10608 of 2010 are hereby dismissed. 33. Before parting with this order, we may also notice here that the respondent (husband) filed a Criminal Appeal No. 937 of 2013 @ SLP(Crl.)No.3335 of 2012, challenging the order dated 23rd December, 2011 of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. As noticed earlier, the aforesaid order was passed in the criminal petition filed by the respondent husband, seeking quashing of the criminal complaint filed by the appellant/wife against the respondent himself and his parents under Sections 498-A, 506 of IPC and Sections 4 & 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Since no arguments were advanced in the aforesaid matter, let this appeal be listed for arguments separately.

 published in   http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40567  REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.934-936 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10606-10608 of 2010) Arathi Bandi …Appellant VERSUS Bandi Jagadrakshaka Rao & Ors. …Respondents WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.937 OF 2013 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3335 of 2012) Bandi Jagadrakshak Rao … Continue reading

CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908: Or. 22,r.4 – Abatement of appeal -Inordinate delay in filing application for bringing legal heirs on record and for setting aside abatement – High Court passed a conditional order giving final opportunity to do the needful, failing which the appeal was to stand dismissed-Order not complied with-Subsequently, High Court allowed all applications condoning 3703 days delay in filing the application to bring the legal heirs on record and 883 days delay in filing petition to set aside the dismissal order-Held: Whilst considering applications for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, the courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers- All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law-The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason-Whims or fancies, prejudices or predilections can not and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers-High Court, having recorded its conclusions and findings on the unacceptable explanation for delay, should not have condoned unconscionable delay-Judgment of High Court is unsustainable either in law or in equity and is set aside-Limitation Act, 1963-s. 5. ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE: Remarks in judgment of High Court on performance of government pleaders – Appeal filed by State Government, before High court-Inordinate delay on the part of Government pleaders in taking steps to bring heirs and legal representative of the respondent on record-Remarks made by High Court against Government pleaders-Held: High Court has, rather sarcastically, dubbed the government pleaders as without merit and ability-The approach adopted by the High Court tends to show the absence of judicial balance and restraint, which a Judge is required to maintain whilst adjudicating any lis between the parties-The High Court not being satisfied with the use of mere intemperate language, resorted to blatant sarcasms-The use of unduly strong intemperate or extravagant language in a judgment has been repeatedly disapproved by this Court in a number of cases-The order of the High Court is based purely on the personal perceptions and predilections of the Judges on the bench-The latent anger and hostility ingrained in the expressions employed in the judgment have denuded the judgment of impartiality-In its desire to castigate the government pleaders and the Court staff, the High Court has sacrificed the “justice oriented approach”, the bedrock of which is fairness and impartiality-The caustic remarks made by the High Court, against the government pleaders and the Court staff clearly exhibit a departure from settled principles- The judgment of the High Court is unsustainable either in law or in equity and, as such, is set aside- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Or. 22, r.4 – Strictures – Judicial restraint. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court against judgment and decree in a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, the plaintiff-respondent died on 25.2.1990 and his counsel filed a memo before the High Court giving the said intimation after notice to the advocate for the appellants. When the appeal came up for hearing on 24.4.1997, the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent again brought to the notice of the High Court the factum of death of his client. Since, inspite of the directions of the High Court, no steps were taken to bring the legal heirs and representatives of the plaintiff-respondent on record, on 6.2.1998, it gave one week’s time for compliance failing which the appeal would stand dismissed. As the order was not complied with, the appeal stood dismissed in terms of the order dated 6.2.1998. In the year 2000, an application was filed by the judgment-debtors before the High Court seeking condonation of 883 days delay in filing the petition to set aside the dismissal order dated 6.2.1998. On 17.8.2000 another application was filed seeking to condone 3703 days delay to bring the legal representatives on record. It was accompanied by an application under Order 22 , Rule 4, CPC. After several adjournments at the instance of the judgment- debtors, the appeal was listed for hearing on 19.8.2003 on which date the High Court allowed all the applications and restored the appeal and posted it for hearing. Aggrieved, the heirs and legal representatives of the plaintiff filed the appeals. =Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. This Court while issuing notice in the SLP had directed proceedings in the appeal pending in the High Court to remain stayed meanwhile. Therefore, it is evident that the situation as on date is as it was when the order was passed on 06.02.1998 i.e. , appeal filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 stood abated and, as such, dismissed. [Para 16] [229-C] 1.2. Generally speaking, the courts including this Court, adopt a liberal approach in considering the application for condonation of delay on the ground of sufficient cause u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. [para 19] [230-C] Balwant Singh (dead) Vs. Jagdish Singh, 2010 (8) SCR597= (2010) 8 SCC 685; N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy 1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 403= (1998) 7 SCC 123; Mithailal Dalsangar Singh & Ors. Vs. Annabai Devram Kini & Ors. (2003) 10 SCC 691; and Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by LRs Vs. Pramod Gupta (dead) by LRs. 2002 (5) Suppl. SCR350= (2003) 3 SCC 272; and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Ors. Vs. Katiji & Ors. 1987 (2) SCR 387= (1987) 2 SCC 107 – referred to. 1.3. Whilst considering applications for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies, prejudices or predilections can not and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers. [para 26] [234-G-H; 235-A] 1.4. The High Court, in the instant case, graphically narrated the clear dereliction of duty by the government pleaders concerned in not pursuing the appeal before it diligently, and set out the different stages at which the government pleaders had exhibited almost culpable negligence in performance of their duties. It found the justification given by the government pleaders to be unacceptable. Having recorded such conclusions, inexplicably, the High Court proceeds to condone the unconscionable delay. Such a course was not open to the High Court, given the pathetic explanation offered by the respondents in the application seeking condonation of delay. There does not seem to be any logic or rationale, which could have impelled the High Court to condone the delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” cannot be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the court concludes that there is no justification for the delay. [para 24, 25-26] [234-B-C; 235-F; 234-D] 2.1. In the opening paragraph of the impugned order the High Court has, rather sarcastically, dubbed the government pleaders as without merit and ability. The approach adopted by the High Court tends to show the absence of judicial balance and restraint, which a Judge is required to maintain whilst adjudicating any lis between the parties. The High Court, not being satisfied with the use of mere intemperate language, resorted to blatant sarcasms. The use of unduly strong intemperate or extravagant language in a judgment has been repeatedly disapproved by this Court in a number of cases. [para 25-26] [233-G; 234-F] 2.2. The order of the High Court is based purely on the personal perceptions and predilections of the Judges on the bench. The latent anger and hostility ingrained in the expressions employed in the judgment have denuded the judgment of impartiality. In its desire to castigate the government pleaders and the Court staff, the High Court has sacrificed the “justice oriented approach”, the bedrock of which is fairness and impartiality. It is also well known that anger deprives a human being of his ability to reason. Judges being human are not immune to such disability. It is of utmost importance that in expressing their opinions, Judges and Magistrates be guided only by the considerations of doing justice. The caustic remarks made by the High Court, against the government pleaders and the Court staff clearly exhibit a departure from the well established principles. [para 27-28] [235-B-D; 236-D] State of U.P. Vs. Mohammad Naim (1964)2 SCR 363 – relied on. 3. The judgment of the High Court is unsustainable either in law or in equity and, as such, is set aside. [para 29] [236-E] Case Law Reference: 2010 (8) SCR597 referred to para 18 1998 ( 1 ) Suppl. SCR 403 referred to para 18 (2003) 10 SCC 691 referred to para 18 2002 (5 ) Suppl. SCR350 referred to para 18 1987 ( 2 ) SCR 387 referred to para 19 (1964)2 SCR 363 relied on para 27 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2909-2913 of 2005. From the Judgment & Order dated 19.08.2003 of the High Court Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CMP Nos. 21114-21118 of 2003. P.S. Narasimha and R. Sundaravardan, M. Srinivas R. Rao, K. Parameshwar, Sudhu Gupta, G.N. Reddy, V. Pattabhi Ram, C.K. Sucharita and V. Mohana for the appearing parties.

REPORTABL E IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2909-2913 OF 2005 Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs. .. Appellants VERSUS State of A.P. & Ors ..Respondents J U D G M E N T SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. These appeals are directed against the order passed by a Division … Continue reading

arbitration = The petitioner has filed the present application under Sections 11(4) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 read with paragraph 2 of the Appointment of the Arbitrators by the Chief Justice of India Scheme, 1996. It is stated that the parties had entered into a legally valid and enforceable Memorandum of Understanding (`MOU’) – 1 –

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO.18 OF 2010 M/s. Reva Electric Car Co. P. Ltd. …Petitioner VERSUS M/s. Green Mobil …Respondent O R D E R SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. The petitioner has filed the present application under Sections 11(4) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation … Continue reading

The case of the prosecution is that respondent Nos. 3 to 8 in criminal appeal No. 1660 of 2011 formed an lawful assembly on 29-06-2007, common object of which was to murder Surinder Singh and in prosecution of the common object of the said assembly, respondents Nos. 3 to 8 mounted a murderous assault on Surinder Singh, husband of the appellant, at village Sanoora, District Samba (J & K). The injured was immediately shifted to hospital for treatment. On the basis of the information given by the appellant, FIR No.113/2007 under Section 307 read with 109 of Ranbir Penal 3 Code was registered at police station Hiranagar, in connection with the aforesaid incident on June 29, 2007. On July 2, 2007 injured Surinder Singh succumbed to his injuries in Military Hospital, Satwari, Jammu and, therefore, offence punishable under Section 302 of Ranbir Penal Code was added. On the basis of FIR lodged by the appellant, investigation was undertaken. During the course of investigation statement of the appellant and other witnesses were recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1989. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination. After completion of the investigation, the investigating agency had filed charge sheet in the Court of learned Magistrate for offences punishable under Sections 302, 109, 147, 148, 149 of the Ranbir Penal Code. As the offence punishable under Section 302 is triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions, the case was committed to Sessions Court for trial. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, after hearing the prosecution and the accused on the question of framing charge, framed necessary charge on March 24, 2008 against each accused for the offences punishable 4 under Sections 302, 109, 147, 148, 149 of Ranbir Penal Code. 3. Feeling aggrieved by the framing of above mentioned charges by the trial court on March 24, 2008, the respondent Nos. 3 to 7 in Criminal Appeal No.1660 of 2011 preferred Criminal Revision No. 29 of 2008 before the High Court. The High Court by order dated June 6, 2008 issued notice and summoned the record of the case from the trial court. On March 20, 2009, the respondent No. 8, who is original accused No.6, preferred a petition No. 54 of 2009 under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash order dated March 24, 2008 passed by the trial court framing charges against him for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 109, 147, 148 read with 149 of the Ranbir Penal Code. During the pendency of above numbered petitions, the High Court by order dated August 13, 2009 sent back the record to the trial court and granted liberty to the respondent Nos. 3 to 8 to seek bail from the trial court. When the above numbered Revision and the petition filed under Section 561-A were pending disposal before the High Court, the prosecution 5 examined three eye witnesses to the occurrence viz. (1) Santosh Kumari, i.e., the appellant herein, (2) Surishta Devi and (3) Shakti Devi. It may be stated that the appellant and the Shakti Devi have fully supported the case of the prosecution.

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1660-1662 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 751-753 of 2011) Santosh Kumari … Appellant Versus State of J & K & Others … Respondents J U D G M E N T J.M. PANCHAL, J. 1. The appellant is the widow … Continue reading

the provisions of Section 225 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1989 as applicable to the State of Jammu and Kashmir which reads as under :- “225. Effect of errors :- No error in stating either the offence or the particulars required to be stated in the charge, and no omission to state the offence or those particulars, shall be regarded at any stage of the case as material, unless the accused was in fact misled by such error or omission, and it has occasioned failure of justice.”

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1660-1662 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) Nos. 751-753 of 2011) Santosh Kumari … Appellant Versus State of J & K & Others … Respondents J U D G M E N T J.M. PANCHAL, J. 1. The appellant is the widow … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,891,706 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,906 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com