web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: October 2019

Movies for Law Students and…

Posted on October 27, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Telugu

Sudigundaalu

Ashwathama

Srava Sandhya

 

 

Tamil

Manithan

 

 

 

Hindi

Pink
Jolly LLB
Jolly LLB 2
Aitraaz
Shourya
Mulk

https://www.primevideo.com/detail/Dhananjoy/0OWLNAT6SAFOS2BPIC0KCNO7J1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhananjoy_Chatterjee

 

 

 

English

Clock work orange
12 angry men
My cousine Vinny ( extemly funny & creative)
Philadelphia ( Tom Hanks & denzil – Jo lost due to HIV )
To kill a mockingbird ( child role )

 

 

Movie Lists

https://m.imdb.com/list/ls026258815/

18 Best Bollywood Movies on Courtroom Drama and lawyers

 

 

Posted in General Study Material | Tagged Movies

Maintenance Judgments

Posted on October 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Maintenance judgments by Enactment

PWDV Act 2005

No Maintenance under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

Grant of Maintenance under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

 

Hindu Marriage Act

No Maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act

Grant of Maintenance under Hindu Marriage Act

 

125 CrPC

No Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC

 

Others

Grant or Enhancement of Interim Maintenance

No Maintenance to Knife Judgments


A 2-judge bench passed guidelines to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments CrPC 125 - Interim Maintenance Denied CrPC 125 - Interim Maintenance Granted CrPC 125 - Maintenance Denied CrPC 125 - Maintenance Granted HM Act 24 - Interim Maintenance Denied HM Act 24 – Interim Maintenance Granted PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Denied Summary Post

Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs Rakesh Jeetmal Jain on 20 July, 2010

Posted on October 21, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Apex Court held in this decision u/s 23 of Hindu Marriage Act that, Court has to consider the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent before granting Interim Maintenance to application.

From Para 8,

8. Section 24 thus provides that in any proceeding under the Act, the spouse who has no independent income sufficient for her or his support may apply to the court to direct the respondent to pay the monthly maintenance as the court may think reasonable, regard being had to the petitioner’s own income and the income of the respondent. The very language in which Section is couched indicates that wide discretion has been conferred on the court in the matter of an order for interim maintenance. Although the discretion conferred on the court is wide, the Section provides guideline inasmuch as while fixing the interim maintenance the court has to give due regard to the income of the respondent and the petitioner’s own income. In other words, in the matter of making an order for interim maintenance, the discretion of the court must be guided by the criterion provided in the Section, namely, the means of the parties and also after taking into account incidental and other relevant factors like social status; the background from which both the parties come from and the economical dependence of the petitioner. Since an order for interim maintenance by its very nature is temporary, a detailed and elaborate exercise by the court may not be necessary, but, at the same time, the court has got to take all the relevant factors into account and arrive at a proper amount having regard to the factors which are mentioned in the statute.

Final Straw:

The cost of the appeal is burdened at Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) on the husband to be paid to the appellant within one month from today.


Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs Rakesh Jeetmal Jain on 20 July, 2010

Citations: 2010 SCR 8 505, 2010 AIR SC 3540, 2010 SCC 12 242, 2010 SCALE 7 201,

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9474/


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

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged HM Act 24 - Consider Means or Education of Wife HM Act 24 - Interim Maintenance Enhanced Legal Procedure Explained Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs Rakesh Jeetmal Jain

Bilal Hajar @ Abdul Hameed Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police on 10 October, 2018

Posted on October 20, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court of India laid the explanation for the definition of conspiracy as prescribed u/s  120A IPC (and punishment u/s 120B IPC).

From Para 32,

32. Therefore, in order to constitute a conspiracy, meeting of mind of two or more persons to do an illegal act or an act by illegal means is a must. In
other words, it is sine qua non for invoking the plea of conspiracy against the accused. However, it is not necessary that all the conspirators must  know each and every detail of the conspiracy, which is being hatched and nor it is necessary to prove their active part/role in such meeting.

 

Bilal Hajar @ Abdul Hameed Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police on 10 October, 2018

Citations: 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1865

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/31194569/


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

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Bilal Hajar @ Abdul Hameed Vs State Rep by the Inspector of Police IPC 120A - Definition of criminal conspiracy IPC 120B - Punishment of criminal conspiracy

IPC 120B – Punishment of criminal conspiracy

Posted on October 20, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.—

(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged IPC 120B - Punishment of criminal conspiracy

IPC 120A – Definition of criminal conspiracy

Posted on October 20, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

120A. Definition of criminal conspiracy.—When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,—
(1) an illegal act, or

(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation.—It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged IPC 120A - Definition of criminal conspiracy

Hooghly Mills Company Ltd Vs State of West Bengal on 17 October, 2019

Posted on October 20, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Apex Court held that, a High Court can quash even an interlocutory order under section 482 CrPC.

From Para 11,

11. Coming to the final issue, Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. provides that the High Court’s powers of revision shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. Whereas Section 482 of the Cr.P.C provides that nothing in the Cr.P.C will limit the High Court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice. Hence the High Court may exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 to set aside an interlocutory order, notwithstanding the bar under Section 397(2). However it is settled law that this can only be done in exceptional cases. This is, for example, where a criminal proceeding has been initiated illegally, vexatiously or without jurisdiction (See Madhu Limaye v. State of Maharashtra, (1977) 4 SCC 551).

Hooghly Mills Company Ltd Vs State of West Bengal on 17 October, 2019

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org link:


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

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 - Interlocutory Order can be Quashed CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court Hooghly Mills Company Ltd Vs State of West Bengal Legal Procedure Explained Reportable Judgement

Sameer Garg and Anr Vs State and Anr on 25 September, 2019

Posted on October 13, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Honorable Delhi High Court held that, “if any of the allegations are found to be patently false, the trial court shall take necessary steps to prosecute the concerned complainant to the full extent of law”

Sameer Garg and Anr Vs State and Anr on 25 September, 2019

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org link:


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

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Judgment Sameer Garg and Anr Vs State and Anr Work-In-Progress Article

Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors

Posted on October 13, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Few other Orders passed by the Supreme Court in the Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors case (available here)are listed below for reference.

  • Khatri and Others Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 19 December, 1980
    1. This is decision from Apex Court of India which held that right to free legal services is inalienable from Article 21.
    2. Khatri and Others Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 19 December, 1980

  • Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 14 January, 1981
    1. Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 14 January, 1981

  • Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 25 November, 1982
    1. Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 25 November, 1982
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced Summary Post

CrPC 162 – Statements to police not to be signed: Use of statements in evidence

Posted on October 12, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) No statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation under this Chapter, shall, if reduced to writing, be signed by the person making it; nor shall any such statement or any record thereof, whether in a police diary or otherwise, or any part of such statement or record, be used for any purpose, save as hereinafter provided, at any inquiry or trial
in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made:
Provided that when any witness is called for the prosecution in such inquiry or trial whose statement has been reduced into writing as aforesaid, any part of his statement, if duly proved, may be used by the accused, and with the permission of the Court, by the prosecution, to contradict such witness in the manner provided by section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act , 1872 (1 of 1872); and when any part of such statement is so used, any part thereof may also be used in the re-examination of such witness, but for the purpose only of explaining any matter referred to in his cross-examination.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to apply to any statement falling within the provisions of clause (1) of section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872); or to affect the provisions of section 27 of that Act.
Explanation.—An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be significant and otherwise relevant having regard to the context in which such omission occurs and whether any omission amounts to a contradiction in the particular context shall be a question of fact.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged CrPC 162 - Statements To Police Not To Be Signed - Use Of Statements In Evidence

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Chekka Guru Murali Mohan and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 19 Jan 2021 January 23, 2021
  • AP State Election Commission Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh January 21, 2021
  • Government of Andhra Pradesh Vs AP State Election Commission on 11 Jan 2021 January 21, 2021
  • Change the Advocate January 21, 2021
  • Decisions of High Courts to be made applicable in Other High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India January 21, 2021

Most Read Posts

  • All Reliefs from Judiciary (821 views)
  • Hindu Personal Code Laws (597 views)
  • Future Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India (572 views)
  • Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 06 August 2020 (547 views)
  • All Protection from Police High-handedness (487 views)
  • Exemption from Personal Appearance (u/s 205 CrPC) in Court Judgments (486 views)
  • Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (413 views)
  • State of Kerala Vs Rasheed on 30 October 2018 (409 views)
  • Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs Union of India on 18 August 2020 (373 views)
  • All Bail Judgments (319 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained (216)Landmark Case (210)Work-In-Progress Article (187)Reportable Judgement (164)Catena of Landmark Judgments (120)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (97)Sandeep Pamarati (81)Article 21 of The Constitution of India (61)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (46)Summary Post (46)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (43)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (43)3-Judge Bench Decision (37)1-Judge Bench Decision (36)IPC 498a Not Made Out (32)CrPC 482 - Quash (32)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (32)PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted (31)PIL - CrPC 125 Must Go From Statute Book (28)LLB Subjects and Previous Year Exam Papers and Answers (27)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (491)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (249)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (131)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (82)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (75)General Study Material (53)Prakasam DV Cases (46)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (44)LLB Study Material (44)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (40)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (35)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (34)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (32)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (27)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (21)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (13)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (11)Chittor DV Cases (11)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • muralidhar Rao Sirangi on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • ShadesOfKnife on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • anuj on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • January 2021 (42)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (29)
  • August 2020 (42)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (36)
  • December 2019 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (74)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (102)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Cloudflare Logs Delays January 23, 2021
    Jan 23, 03:29 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jan 22, 20:06 UTCMonitoring - Cloudflare has implemented a fix for this issue and is currently monitoring the results. We will update the status once the issue is resolved.Jan 22, 20:06 UTCIdentified - Cloudflare has identified the issue and is implementing a fix. We will update […]
  • DNS Service Issues January 22, 2021
    Jan 22, 05:00 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jan 22, 04:50 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Jan 22, 03:43 UTCIdentified - The issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented.Jan 22, 03:26 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is aware of an issue with the performance of DNS […]
  • Cloudflare Billing Issues January 20, 2021
    Jan 20, 13:11 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jan 20, 13:01 UTCUpdate - Cloudflare has resolved the issue affecting the ordering platform. At this time transactions should be processing normally for existing customers and new customer signups.Jan 20, 12:59 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Jan 20, 12:50 […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 87.202.21.152 | SC January 22, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 23 | First: 2008-09-08 | Last: 2021-01-13
  • 36.67.51.186 | SDC January 22, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 108 | First: 2018-10-21 | Last: 2021-01-15
  • 180.121.135.91 | SC January 22, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 13 | First: 2017-09-22 | Last: 2021-01-14
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC
pixel