A constitution bench of Apex Court is going to decide the fate of AIBE exam (SLP(C)No.22337/2008)…
Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors on 20 Sep 20222022-Sep-27
Here is the causelist for 27 Sep 2022 and 28 Sep 2022
2022-09-27 Court-3 Constitution BenchAnd here is the Order passed on 27-Sep-2022, saying Part-Heard.
2022-09-27 Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors on 27 Sep 20222022-Sep-28
Citations:
Other Sources:
A Full bench of Apex Court held as follows:
Bar Council of India Vs Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar and Ors on 02 Aug 2022In respect of the aforesaid, it is clarified for the benefit of the parties with consent that the procedure to be followed by the Bar Council of India would be that persons who are in jobs and are desirous of taking the examination, will in advance inform the Bar Council of the factum of their employment and on being successful in the examination, an undertaking would be required that within six months they will take a call whether to resign or join the profession or they will still continue to work in their respective jobs, in which case, they would on a subsequent date being so desirous of joining the profession require to take the examination afresh and in case of resignation give proof thereof.
This is a connected matter to the Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors matter (pending from 2008)
A Full Bench of the Apex Court held as follows regarding a query, whether a PoA Holder can file a complaint u/s 200 CrPC in a NI Act case.
From Para 26,
A.C.Narayanan Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Sep 201326) While holding that there is no serious conflict between the decisions in MMTC (supra) and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra), we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner:
(i) Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of N.I Act through power of attorney is perfectly legal and competent.
(ii) The Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the Court in order to prove the contents of the complaint.
However, the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions.
(iii) It is required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint and the power of attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transactions cannot be examined as a witness in the case.
(iv) In the light of section 145 of N.I Act, it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act and the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant of his witness upon oath for taking the decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
(v) The functions under the general power of attorney cannot be delegated to another person without specific clause permitting the same in the power of attorney. Nevertheless, the general power of attorney itself can be cancelled and be given to another person.
Citations: [2014 ALT CRL AP 1 44], [2013 SCALE 11 360], [2013 KERLT 4 21], [2014 AIR SC 630], [2014 CALLT SC 1 53], [2014 PLJR 1 216], [2013 OLR 2 884], [2013 BC 4 212], [2013 CTC 5 560], [2014 SCC 11 790], [2013 CLA SC 117 4], [2013 COMPCAS SC 180 258], [2014 AKR 1 314], [2013 KLJ 4 279], [2014 LW 1 698], [2013 PLR 4 733], [2013 NCC 2 854], [2014 ALD CRL SC 1 649], [2013 KHC 3 885], [2013 WLN SC 4 25], [2013 ALLCC 83 583], [2014 LW CRL 1 154], [2014 SCC CIV 4 343], [2013 SUPREME 6 705], [2014 CRLJ SC 576], [2013 AIOL 611], [2013 JT 12 524], [2013 SLT 8 133], [2014 DCR SC 1 135], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 839], [2013 AIC 131 160], [2014 ECRN 1 486], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 307], [2013 JCC NI SC 4 214], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 4 382], [2014 JLJR SC 1 48], [2013 BOMCR SC 6 424], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 306], [2013 ALLMR CRI SC 4048], [2013 MLJ CRL 4 213]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/47858029/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2ae4b0149711415b31
https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/a-c-narayanan-vs-state-of-maharashtra-4779
A single judge of a Sessions Court in Mumbai held as follows:
From Para 5,
5] Perusal of the application under Section 12 of the D. V. Act filed by the applicant has several references to the alleged domestic violence committed by the respondent No. 1. It is not in dispute that he resides separately and not with the appellant or the respondent No. 1. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in his impugned order has observed that since the respondent No. 1 never resided with the appellant in any shared household he cannot be considered to be the respondent as defined by Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act. He, therefore, omitted him from the array of the respondents in the main application.
From Para 6,
Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 20226] Such an observation of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate however, is wholly misplaced. It is for the simple reason that the proviso to Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act makes it very clear that an aggrieved wife can also file a complaint against a relative of the husband. The Act nowhere mandates that an aggrieved person can seek relief only against the persons who have shared household with her. Had that been so, it would have been very convenient to cause violence or any other trouble to the aggrieved person through the relatives not sharing the same household and yet remained out of the clutches of the D. V. Act. Rather, holding that any relative of the husband if not sharing or shared the same household cannot be a respondent would amount to giving licence to those relatives to commit violence to the aggrieved person and thereby rendering the very Act meaningless. That just cannot be and certainly was not the intention while enacting the said statute. As observed earlier, there are sufficient references to show that the respondent No. 1 was also a party to the domestic violence committed to the appellant. As such, the proceedings against him was certainly tenable. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was obviously wrong in holding that the respondent No. 1 since not shared the household with the appellant could not be a respondent as defined by Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act. Consequently, the impugned order cannot sustain.
Index of DV Cases here.
A Single judge of Allahabad High Court held as follows,
Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act was filed by the petitioners way back on
16.07.2016 and despite the opposite party nos.2 to 8 have been served, the petition is still pending before the court below and the same has not been
decided as provided under Section 12(5) of the Domestic Violence Act. While drawing the attention of this Court towards the order-sheet of the case, it has been submitted that now the case is pending for cross examination of the prosecution witness no.3.
Learned A.G.A. would have no objection to the prayer of the petitioners as it is otherwise the mandate of law to dispose of the cases pertaining to the Domestic Violence Act at the earliest.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and having regard the nature of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the opposite party nos.2 to 8 is dispensed with.
Having regard to the provisions under Section 12(5) of the Domestic Violence Act, the petition is disposed of with the direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow to make all endeavors to decide the above-mentioned complaint case within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, without granting soft adjournments to either of the parties, in accordance with law.
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51997103/
Connects to a PIL here.
A Single judge of Madras High Court held as follows,
From Paras 4 and 5,
Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 20214. The complaint has been filed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners draws my attention to Section 12(5) of the Act which states that the Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.
5. In this case, the complaint was filed way back in the year 2019. Keeping the petition pending for more than two years is not an acceptable state of affairs. The learned trial Magistrate is directed to dispose of D.V.C.No.11 of 2019 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Other Sources:
Connects to a PIL here.
A Single judge of Patna High Court held as follows,
Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019In my previous order dated 10.04.2019 while calling for a report from the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar as to why any effective order has not been passed till date despite hearing the case on behalf of the parties on several dates, I had already indicated that the Protection of Women fromDomestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) has been enacted by the Parliament to provide more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution.
Section 12(5) of the Act provides that the Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under subsection (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its firsthearing. Under the circumstances, keeping the matter pending for over two years is wholly unjustified.
In that view of the matter, I direct the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar to dispose of the complaint in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82362334/
Connects to a PIL here.
A Single judge of Bombay High Court held as follows,
From Para 5, (some one tried hard to help the knife just so that she can reap the benefit of interim reliefs!)
5. Section 12(5) of the D.V. Act casts the obligation on the Magistrate to make every endevour to dispose of the application within a period of 60 days from the date of first hearing. The record itself speaks that in disregard to the statutory mandate, the Magistrate has adjourned the Matter for no reason. It is informed that the Magistrate has already passed the order of interim maintenance which is prevailing till date. It is submitted that the non-applicant/wife without prosecuting her main petition, is interested in deriving benefits of interim order.
From Para 6, why not?
6. Though it is prayed that the D.V. proceeding be dismissed for want of prosecution, however, the same course is not advisable. As on date, the non-applicant/ wife’s amendment application is on record which is to be responded. At this stage, only requirement is to issue certain directions to the Magistrate to expedite the proceeding. Certainly such direction would be in the interest of non-applicant/wife. The applicant/husband undertakes to file his reply to amendment application on the next date i.e. on 12.07.2022 itself.
From Para 7,
Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 20227. In view of above, learned Magistrate is directed to hear and decide the amendment application within one week from filing of reply and the non-applicant/wife shall file evidence-affidavit within one week thereafter. The Magistrate shall not grant adjournment to either of the parties barring exceptional situation. In any case, the Magistrate shall dispose of the D. V. Proceeding within three months from the date of filing of wife’s evidence-affidavit.
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105650848/
Connects to a PIL here.
A Single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows (while dismissing the petition),
From Para 6,
Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 20226. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, considering the fact that the DVC is of the year, 2018, learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad is directed to dispose of DVC.No.4 of 2018 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102447017/
Connects to a PIL here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 521 access attempts in the last 7 days.
