The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Messrs. Vazir Sultan and Sons on 20 March 1959

Posted on March 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that,

It is no doubt true that this Court was not concerned with any agency agreement in the last mentioned case and the observations made by this Court there were by way of obiter dicta. The obiter dicta of this Court, however, are entitled to considerable weight and we on our part fully endorse the same.

The Commissioner of IT Vs Messrs. Vazir Sultan and Sons on 20 March 1959

Citations: [1959 ITR 36 175], [1959 AIR SC 814], [1959 SUPP SCR 2 375], [1959 SCR SUPL 2 375], [1959 ITR SC 36 175]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/776903/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab0de4b014971140b832

Landmark Judgment of Kusum Ingots is here.

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Post Views: 581

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs Meena Variyal and Ors on 2 April 2007

Posted on March 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that,

An obiter dictum of this Court may be binding only on the High Courts in the absence of a direct pronouncement on that question elsewhere by this Court. But as far as this Court is concerned, though not binding, it does have clear persuasive authority.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs Meena Variyal and Ors on 2 April 2007

Citations: [2007 KLT SUPP 3 18], [2007 SCR 4 641], [2007 JCC 2 1280], [2007 WBLR 3 264], [2007 TNMAC 2 9], [2007 SCJ 3 498], [2007 GLR 3 2356], [2007 SCC CR 2 527], [2007 ILR KER 3 569], [2007 AIR SC 0 2362], [2007 MPHT 3 1], [2007 COMPCAS 137 116], [2007 SCC 5 428], [2007 ALLLJ 3 596], [2007 ALLSCR 0 1697], [2007 MLJ 2 1230], [2007 ALD 3 99], [2007 SUPREME 3 136], [2007 AIR KAR R 3 437], [2007 ACC 4 335], [2007 AIOL 359], [2007 SCALE 5 269], [2007 TAC 2 417], [2007 SCC CRI 2 527], [2007 SLT 9 251], [2007 AIR SC 1609], [2007 ACJ 0 1284], [2007 JT 5 65], [2008 LW 1 838], [2007 ANWR 1 545]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1964308/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae62e4b0149711413b05

Landmark Judgment of Kusum Ingots is here.

Post Views: 662

Sarwan Singh Lamba and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 May 1995

Posted on March 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that,

Para 17,

Normally even an obiter dictum is expected to be obeyed and followed.

TruePrint Version

TP_1995_4_scc_546_561_sandeeppamarati_gmailcom_20200320_233725

Citations: [1995 JT 5 386], [1995 AIR SC 1729], [1995 SCALE 3 457], [1995 SCC 4 546], [1995 SCC L&S 1064], [1995 ATC 30 585], [1995 BLJR 2 1295], [1995 SUPP SCR 1 427], [1995 SLJ SC 3 72], [1995 UPLBEC 2 1215]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/538878/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609acc5e4b014971140fb0f

Landmark Judgment of Kusum Ingots is here.

Post Views: 481

IPC 354E – Sextortion

Posted on March 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) Whoever,—
(a) being in a position of authority; or
(b) being in a fiduciary relationship; or
(c) being a public servant,
abuses such authority or fiduciary relationship or misuses his official position to employ physical or non physical forms of coercion to extort or demand sexual favours from any woman in
exchange of some benefits or other favours that such person is empowered to grant or withhold, shall be guilty of offence of sextortion.
Explanation.–For the purpose of this section, ‗sexual favour‘ shall mean and include any kind of unwanted sexual activity ranging from sexually suggestive conduct, sexually explicit actions such as touching, exposure of private body parts to sexual intercourse, including exposure over the electronic mode of communication.
(2) Any person who commits the offence of sextortion shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but may extend to five years and with fine.

IPC 354D here

Post Views: 225

IPC 354D – Stalking

Posted on March 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

(1) Any man who—
(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication, commits the offence of stalking:
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that—
(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the
State; or
(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.
(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

IPC 354C here and IPC 354E here

Post Views: 135

IPC 354C – Voyeurism

Posted on March 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by the
perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.—For the purpose of this section, “private act” includes an act of watching carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy and where the victim’s genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.
Explanation 2.—Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section.

IPC 354B here and IPC 354D here

Post Views: 128

C Krishna Priya Vs State of AP on 14 September 2018

Posted on March 19, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Another judgment from Erstwhile High Court of AP which rapped on the knuckles of the JMFC who dismissed the Discharge petition filed u/s 239 CrPC, where there were no specific allegations on the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that at the time of marriage of the complainant with the Accused No.1, the petitioner was 12 years old. No specific allegations are made against the petitioner, either in the charge sheet or in the statement of list of witnesses, except ominous allegations that the petitioner being sister of A.1, also demanded for additional dowry of Rs.3 lakhs. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be maintained.
7. The learned public prosecutor appearing for the respondent state, fairly conceded that no specific allegations are made against the petitioner except a vague allegation that the petitioner also demanded for additional dowry.
8. Having heard both the counsel and from the perusal of the material on record, particularly, the charge sheet what all that is stated against the petitioner herein is that A-1 to A-4 demanded LW.1 to get additional dowry of Rs.3 lakhs for doing business and demanded LW1 to sign on diverse papers to enable the A.1 to marry another girl. In fact no specific dates, month or year have been mentioned. The said allegation is as vague as possible.

Now Start music…

9. In the recent times, various complaints are being lodged for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in which, whether any allegation is made out or not, all the family members are being roped in as accused only for the purpose of harassing the innocent family members whereby forcing them to come to terms.
10. From the above, this Court is of the opinion that when no specific allegations are made against the petitioner who is the sister of A.1, the continuation of proceedings against her would amount to abuse of process of the Court, apart from putting the petitioner to undue hardship of facing the trial. As such, this court is inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below in declaring the discharge of the petitioner.

C Krishna Priya Vs State of AP on 14 September 2018

Citations: [

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79415399/

Post Views: 179

State of AP Vs AP State Election Commission on 18 March 2020

Posted on March 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has held that Andhra Pradesh State Election Commission’s decision to postpone local body elections cannot be faulted with. Rest of the points adjudicated are in the below Disposal Order.

State of AP Vs AP State Election Commission on 18 March 2020

Citations: [(

Other Source links:

Comments made by various State actors on State Election Commissioner Shri Dr. Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar on March 15, 2020 (and later) are available here.

After watching the theatrics, come back and go through following content.

Then SEC sent a letter to Central Home Minister seeking protection for self and his family from the State Chief Minister and his goons.

AP State Election Commissioner wrote a letter to center and requested security with central force. Isn’t shame to AP Police and Govt? @PMOIndia @rashtrapatibhvn Please intervene & impose president rule in Andhra. No democracy in AP. @umasudhir @vasudha_ET @nistula @RatanSharda55 pic.twitter.com/U5vRvFTUHc
— Sai Bollineni ™ (@saibollineni) March 18, 2020

Here is the Full letter in PDF.

AP State Election Commissioner's Letter to MHA Dt-18 March 2020

After all this nonsense, the incumbent AP Govt make this move here.

A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.

Post Views: 583

Muppa Venkateswara Rao Vs State of AP on 10 March 2020

Posted on March 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, AP High Court has directed that State Election Commission take steps to remove the colours painted on the Panchayat buildings before Elections can be conducted. State Government lead by Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, had painted the colours of their Party on the Panchayat buildings making a loss to the tune of allegedly over 1000 Crores (estimate only) to the exchequer. Now for removal also more funds will be spent. What a mockery of public and public funds!!!

Hopefully, the idiotic voter of AP would be rejoicing now for the quandary of public exchequer which is funded by levying taxes on these very same sheeple !!!

Muppa Venkateswara Rao Vs State of AP on 10 March 2020

Citations: [2

Other Source links:

State of AP dragged it’s feet to Supreme Court on the above judgment and got this in return…

To attack this judgment, AP Government took this step here.

A complete indexed and mess-wise segregated collection of reprimands received by this incumbent State Government of YSRC Party are here.

Post Views: 487

Ishwar Patange Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 March 2020

Posted on March 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court held that since there is no natural calamity, there is no need to postpone, elections for Cooperative Societies.

Ishwar Patange Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 March 2020

Citations: [(

Other Source links:

Post Views: 99

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Messrs. Vazir Sultan and Sons on 20 March 1959

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs Meena Variyal and Ors on 2 April 2007

Sarwan Singh Lamba and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 May 1995

IPC 354E – Sextortion

IPC 354D – Stalking

IPC 354C – Voyeurism

C Krishna Priya Vs State of AP on 14 September 2018

State of AP Vs AP State Election Commission on 18 March 2020

Muppa Venkateswara Rao Vs State of AP on 10 March 2020

Ishwar Patange Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 March 2020