Tata Consultancy Services Limited Vs Cyrus Investments Pvt Ltd and Ors on 26 Mar 2021
Month: March 2021
Jennifer Arul Vs Michael Arul
This is the contempt proceeding under which husband was sent to 3 months simple/civil imprisonment for failing to pay maintenance.
This is the Review Petition filed by wife
State Vs Sandeep on 29 Sep 2019
The mafia who engages in sex first but then terms such consensual sex as rape is busted in this case by Delhi High Court.
From Para 14,
14. In view of the above, the Trial Court concluded that the “accused cannot be held guilty for not marrying the prosecutrix because he and his family members were ready for the marriage but the parents of the prosecutrix did not want that their daughter should marry the accused”. Given the testimony of the witnesses, the conclusion that the accused and Ms P did not marry on account of the opposition from the family of the prosecutrix is certainly a plausible view. The only reservation that this Court has to the above conclusion of the trial court is the implicit assumption that the accused was alleged to be guilty of not marrying Ms P. The accused was not on trial for not marrying Ms. P; but on an allegation of committing the
offence of rape.
From Para 16, 17 and 18,
16. The Trial Court reasoned that if the accused had established physical relationship on account of the promise of marriage, she would have disclosed the same to her parents. This Court finds no infirmity with the said reasoning as well. If the accused had induced Ms P to have physical relations on the false promise to marry; she or her mother, on becoming aware, would have disclosed the same to her father.
17. It is important to bear in mind that two consenting adults establishing a physical relationship, is not a crime. Jilting a lover, however abhorent that it may seem to some, is also not an offence punishable under the IPC.
18. In so far as consent to engage in a sexual act is concerned; the campaign ‘no means no’, that was initiated in the 1990’s, embodies a universally accepted rule: a verbal ‘no’ is a definite indication of not giving consent to engage in a sexual act. There is now wide acceptance to more ahead from the rule of ‘no means no’ to ‘yes means yes’. Thus, unless there is an affirmative, conscious and voluntary consent to engage in sex; the same would constitute an offence.
From Para 21,
21. Inducement to have a physical relationship by promising marriage must have a clear nexus with the moment promise of marriage cannot be held out as an inducement for engaging in sex over a protracted and indefinite period of time. In certain cases, a promise to marry may induce a party to agree to establish sexual relations, even though such party does not desire to consent to the same. Such inducement in a given moment may elicit consent, even though the concerned party may want to say no. Such false inducement given with the intention to exploit the other party would constitute an offence. However, it is difficult to accept that continuing with an intimate relationship, which also involves engaging in sexual activity,
over a significant period of time, is induced and involuntary, merely on the assertion that the other party has expressed its intention to get married.
Varun Priolkar Vs President Noorami Masjid and 3 Ors on 11 Mar 2021
Additional District Magistrate at Ponda-Goa passed Orders that, loudspeakers may not be used without prior permission. Further a maximum noise level limit was prescribed.
In re UTP Dipak Joshi, lodged in Dum Dum Central Correctional Home
On 2021-03-22
High Court raised a question if State Government is considering any payment to Dipak Joshi,towards Compensation or damages for 41 years of incarceration without trial.
Aparna Bhat and Ors Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr on 18 Mar 2021
A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed the following directions in regards to bail proceedings in sexual offences (only applicable to women survivors).
From Para 45 and 46,
44. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, it is hereby directed that henceforth:
(a) Bail conditions should not mandate, require or permit contact between the accused and the victim. Such conditions should seek to protect the complainant from any further harassment by the accused;
(b) Where circumstances exist for the court to believe that there might be a potential threat of harassment of the victim, or upon apprehension expressed, after calling for reports from the police, the nature of protection shall be separately considered and appropriate order made, in addition to a direction to the accused not to make any contact with the victim;
(c) In all cases where bail is granted, the complainant should immediately be informed that the accused has been granted bail and copy of the bail order made over to him/her within two days;
(d) Bail conditions and orders should avoid reflecting stereotypical or patriarchal notions about women and their place in society, and must strictly be in accordance with the requirements of the Cr. PC. In other words, discussion about the dress, behavior, or past “conduct” or “morals” of the prosecutrix, should not enter the verdict granting bail;
(e) The courts while adjudicating cases involving gender related crimes, should not suggest or entertain any notions (or encourage any steps) towards compromises between the prosecutrix and the accused to get married, suggest or mandate mediation between the accused and the survivor, or any form of compromise as it is beyond their powers and jurisdiction;
(f) Sensitivity should be displayed at all times by judges, who should ensure that there is no traumatization of the prosecutrix, during the proceedings, or anything said during the arguments, and
(g) Judges especially should not use any words, spoken or written, that would undermine or shake the confidence of the survivor in the fairness or impartiality of the court.
45. Further, courts should desist from expressing any stereotype opinion, in words spoken during proceedings, or in the course of a judicial order, to the effect that (i) women are physically weak and need protection; (ii) women are incapable of or cannot take decisions on their own; (iii) men are the “head” of the household and should take all the decisions relating to family; (iv) women should be submissive and obedient according to our culture; (v) “good” women are sexually chaste; (vi) motherhood is the duty and role of every woman, and assumptions to the effect that she wants to be a mother; (vii) women should be the ones in charge of their children, their upbringing and care; (viii) being alone at night or wearing certain clothes make women responsible for being attacked; (ix) a woman consuming alcohol, smoking, etc. may justify unwelcome advances by men or “has asked for it”; (x) women are emotional and often overreact or dramatize events, hence it is necessary to corroborate their testimony; (xi) testimonial evidence provided by women who are sexually active may be suspected when assessing “consent” in sexual offence cases; and (xii) lack of evidence of physical harm in sexual offence case leads to an inference of consent by the woman.
Tarlochan Dev Sharma Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 25 July 2001
(The popular meaning also must not be resorted to)
Citations : [2001 AIR SC 2524], [2001 JT SC 5 645], [2002 LW 1 19], [2001 SCALE 4 472], [2001 SCC 6 260], [2001 SCR 3 1146], [2001 AIR SC 2689], [2001 AIR SCW 2689], [2001 JT 5 645]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1389589/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ada0e4b0149711411e78
Paramjit Kumar Saroya Vs Union of India and Anr on 28 May 2014
Sitting on a Division bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court, Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul held that, Appeals under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 can be filed by any of the affected parties.
We may add at this stage that in order to have assistance to this Court in view of the complexity in the matter involved, we considered it appropriate not only for the counsels to assist us, but to appoint Amicus Curiae to have dispassionate view of the matter. We, thus, appointed Mr. Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate as the Amicus Curiae to be assisted by Ms. Divya Sharma, Advocate. They have done a comprehensive research on various aspects of the matter and this includes the Parliamentary debates when the Bill for enactment of the said Act was introduced. A perusal of these debates reflect that therehas been no debate qua Section 16(1) of the said Act, nor has any intent been reflected to exclude the right of appeal to persons other than thesenior citizens or parents, unlike the debate on Section 17 of the said Act where the right of legal representation has been excluded.
And here is the conclusion.
We are thus of the view that Section 16(1) of the said Act is valid, but must be read to provide for the right of appeal to any of the affected parties.
Citations : [2014 AIR P&H 121], [2014 SCC ONLINE P&H 10864]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/156882703/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609a051e4b01497113e6023
Rakhi Sharma Vs State and Ors on 5 Mar 2021
Delhi High Court held that, Appeals can be filed by any ‘affected person’ under MWPSC Act and applicable Rules in Delhi in cases of maintenance and eviction of son, daughter or any legal heir to their property.
From Para 4
4. A large number of writ petitions are filed before this Court challenging orders passed under the Act, as also the Rules. There appears to be some confusion as to which orders are appealable, to which forum and by whom. In order to properly appreciate the scheme of the Act and the Rules thereto, it is necessary to set out the provisions which are applicable separately qua maintenance and eviction proceedings.
From Para 15, 16 and 17,
15. As per the above Rules, a senior citizen can approach the Deputy Commissioner/DM seeking eviction of the son, daughter or any other legal heir from his self-acquired property on account of his non-maintenance and ill-treatment. The term ‘self-acquired property’ has been amended to include ’property of any kind’, vide notification dated 28th July, 2017 numbered F.No.40(405)/AmendmentofRulesMAWPSC2007/DD(SS)/DSW/2015-6/1168411712. Thus, the senior citizen can approach the Deputy Commissioner/DM for eviction from any property over which he/she enjoys rights. The title of the senior citizen is checked. A report is submitted by the concerned SDM after verifying both the title as also the facts pleaded. If the Deputy Commissioner/DM is satisfied, then notice is issued to the children/relatives whose eviction is sought and thereafter orders are passed.
16. Under Rule 22(3)(4), an appeal against the order of the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate would lie before the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi. Thus, in respect of eviction, the first forum would be the Deputy Commissioner/District Magistrate. A challenge to the order of the Deputy Commissioner/DM would lie before the Divisional Commissioner.
17. The Act and the various Rules and Notifications thereto are not readily available to litigants, as also lawyers, in the form of a separate publication. This may be one of the causes for confusion in filing multiple writ petitions directly against the first order of the tribunal or, in the case of eviction, from the order of the Deputy Commissioner/DM. The said orders would be appealable as explained hereinabove. Thus, lawyers and the litigating public ought to avail of the remedies available to them under the Act and the Rules, as per the narration above.
Finally, Directions were passed.
18. Since, in most cases, the appellate forum and the period of limitation is not within the knowledge of litigants and sometimes even lawyers, it is directed that the following two sentences be added at the end of every order passed by the initial forum i.e., the Tribunal under Section 7 of the Act or, in eviction cases, the Deputy Commissioner/DM under Rule 23(3) of the Rules as amended on 19th December, 2016:
For maintenance cases:
“The present order would be appealable, under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 read with Rule 16 of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, to the Appellate Tribunal, presided over by the Deputy Commissioner of the concerned District. The period of limitation for filing of appeal is 60 days.”
For eviction cases:
“The present order would be appealable under Rule 22(3)(4) of The Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2009, as amended on 19th December, 2016 before the Divisional Commissioner, Delhi. The period of limitation for filing of appeal is 60 days.”
Citations :
Other Sources :
