A batch of SLPs submitted by appellant educational institutions are dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgment, who were held not to have approached the Apex Court with clean hands.
Month: June 2018
D-Block Pandav Nagar Residents Vs Amit Yadav And Ors on 13 October, 2015
A society which has earlier given NOC for Raam Leela in a park later on made a U turn and filed a Contempt of Court proceeding which was duly stuck down by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
MS Manu Sharma And Company Vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 29 September, 2016
Interesting case of a liquor merchant trying to approach with unclean hands and gain illegal order from Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Moti Lal Songara Vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu & Anr on 16 May, 2013
Hon’ble Apex court has clearly held that any order that got caused by suppression of information, any Court has an obligation to set aside the said order.
From Para 10,
…learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that when the accused has not approached the court in clean hands and the High Court itself has observed that the order setting aside the order of cognisance was not justified, it should not have interfered with the order passed by the learned trial Judge declining to discharge the accused.
From Para 18,
The second limb of the submission is whether in the obtaining factual matrix, the order passed by the
High Court discharging the accused-respondent is justified in law. We have clearly stated that though the respondent was fully aware about the fact that charges had been framed against him by the learned trial Judge, yet he did not bring the same to the notice of the revisional court hearing the revision against the order taking cognizance. It is a clear case of suppression. It was within the special knowledge of the accused. Any one who takes recourse to method of suppression in a court of law, is, in actuality, playing fraud with the court, and the maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e., suppression of the truth is equivalent to the expression of falsehood, gets attracted. We are compelled to say so as there has been a calculated concealment of the fact before the revisional court. It can be stated with certitude that the accused-respondent tried to gain advantage by such factual suppression. The fraudulent intention is writ large. In fact, he has shown his courage of ignorance and tried to play possum.
A victim of a crime has as much right to get justice from the court as an accused who enjoys the benefit of innocence till the allegations are proven against him. In the case at hand, when an order of quashment of summons has been obtained by suppression, this Court has an obligation to set aside the said order and restore the order framing charges and direct the trial to go on. And we so direct.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund Vs Kartick Das on 20 May, 1994
Awesome judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court on when can a party be set ex parte.
As principle, ex parte injunction could be granted only under exceptional circumstances. The factors which should weigh with the court in the grant of ex parte injunction are –
(a) Whether irreparable or serious mischief will ensue to the plaintiff;
(b) whether the refusal of ex parte injunction would involve greater injustice than the grant of it would involve;
(c) the court will also consider the time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained so that the making of the improper order against a party in his absence is prevented;
(d) the court will consider whether the plaintiff has acquiesced for sometime. In such circumstances it will not grant ex parte injunction;
(e) the court would expect a party applying for ex parte injunction to show utmost good faith in making the application;
(f) even if granted, the ex parte injunction would be for a limited period of time;
(g) general principles like, prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss would also be considered by the court.
Nagaraj Kumar H.K. Vs Smt. Gangadevamma on 1 June, 2018
Wonderful case of mischief done by Mother-out-law on a Son-in-law and how royally, her cover is blown.
Read it for it’s entertainment value.
CrPC 357 – Order to pay compensation
357. Order to pay compensation
(1) When a Court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied-
(a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution;
(b) in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence, when compensation is, in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a Civil Court;
(c) when any person is convicted of any offence for having caused the death of another person or of having abetted the commission of such an offence, in paying compensation to the persons who are, under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 (13 of 1855 ), entitled to recover damages from the person sentenced for the loss resulting to them from such death;
(d) when any person is convicted of any offence which includes theft, criminal misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, or cheating, or of having dishonestly received or retained, or of having voluntarily assisted in disposing of, stolen property knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen, in compensating any bona fide purchaser of such property for the loss of the same if such property is restored to the possession of the person entitled thereto.
(2) If the fine is imposed in a case which is subject to appeal, no such payment shall be made before the period allowed for presenting the appeal has elapsed, or, if an appeal be presented, before the decision of the appeal.
(3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment, order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation, such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced.
(4) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its powers of revision.
(5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter, the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section.
Gali Lakshmi Vs Gali Venkaiah on 30 August, 2017
In this Ex Parte Order under DV Act at Nellore Court, Judge has allowed Maintenance “on account of acts of desertion by the respondent”
Deb Narayan Halder Vs Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003
Hon’ble Apex Court has in this judgment denied maintenance to Knife who is errant and left matrimonial home on her own without any justifiable reasons.
Justice BP SINGH held that,
“the respondent had left her matrimonial home on her own and that she was not compelled by the appellant to leave her matrimonial home, nor had he threatened the respondent with dire consequences if she did not leave his house. There was no ground for the respondent to apprehend that if she lived with the appellant her life would be in danger and that she will be subjected to torture or cruelty. In sum and substance she had no justifiable reason to desert the appellant. The fact that the application for grant of maintenance was filed within four days of her leaving her matrimonial home without any effort for reconciliation, was also significant. The learned Magistrate therefore held that the respondent having left her matrimonial home without any justifiable ground was not entitled to the grant of maintenance.”
Citations: [AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 3174], [2003 AIR SCW 4522], [2004 SCC(CRI) 164], [2003 (5) SLT 170], [(2003) 3 BANKCAS 86], [2003 (6) SCALE 742], [(2003) 7 JT 379 (SC)], [2003 (11) SCC 303], [2003 CRIAPPR(SC) 513], [2003 (9) SRJ 130], [(2003) 11 ALLINDCAS 129 (SC)], [(2004) 2 MARRILJ 488], [(2004) 1 DMC 25], [(2004) 1 BOMCR(CRI) 949], [(2003) 4 ALLCRILR 139], [(2003) 6 SUPREME 415], [(2004) 1 RAJ CRI C 201], [(2004) SC CR R 352], [(2004) 1 RAJ LW 14], [(2003) 2 RAJ LR 492], [2004 CHANDLR(CIV&CRI) 449], [(2003) 10 INDLD 580], [(2003) 4 CRIMES 74], [(2003) 2 UC 1388], [(2003) 2 HINDULR 523], [(2003) 26 OCR 606], [(2003) 4 RECCRIR 189], [(2003) 3 CURCRIR 242], [(2003) 3 ALLCRIR 2849], [(2003) 6 SCALE 742], [(2003) 47 ALLCRIC 897], [(2003) 3 BLJ 531], [2003 (2) ALD(CRL) 765], [(2003) 3 WLC (RAJ) 593]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1017614/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adcce4b01497114124ee
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/deb-narayan-halder-vs-smt-anushree-halder
Index of Maintenance Judgments are here.
Arun Kashinath Deshpande Vs Smt.Inumati Ramchandra Deo on 8 April, 2010
This is a Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Permanent alimony given to Knife is cancelled as the perjury case against her was proved true.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
