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

Category: High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification

Satish Ragde Vs State of Maharashtra on 19 Jan 2021

Posted on January 27 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Satish Ragde Vs State of Maharashtra on 19 Jan 2021

It seems from the news, there will be an SLP at Supreme Court. Will update if any.

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Non-Reportable Judgement POCSO Act Sec 7 - Sexual Assault Satish Ragde Vs State of Maharashtra Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Amol Barsagade Vs State of Maharashtra on 23 Apr 2018

Posted on November 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single Judge of Bombay High Court held that, burden of proof shifting to accused in POCSO cases is not absolute and that the Prosecution has to establish their case on foundational
facts, only after which burden of proof shifts onto accused.

From Para 4, truth comes out.

4. It is admitted by the victim that Hindi books were found on her desk by the accused. The victim was suggested that since the Hindi books were found or discovered by the accused, she left the examination hall crying. The defence, obviously, is that in order to escape the consequences of the unfair practice while answering the Hindi paper, the victim falsely implicated the accused.

From Para 6,

6. The statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act must be understood and tested on the anvil of the golden thread which runs through web of the criminal jurisprudence system in this country that an accused is presumed to be innocent till the guilt is conclusively established beyond reasonable doubt. In the factual matrix, at best, the prosecution has succeeded in bringing on record material giving rise to some suspicion. However, it is trite law that suspicion is not a substitute to proof. The gulf between “might have committed” and “must have committed” must be bridged by the prosecution by unimpeachable and confidence inspiring evidence.

Amol Barsagade Vs State of Maharashtra on 23 Apr 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186788466/

 

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Amol Barsagade Vs State of Maharashtra False Incest Or Rape Or Sexual Or Sexual Harassment Allegations POCSO Act Sec 29 - Burden of Proof on Accused | Leave a comment

Hansa Research Group Pvt Ltd Vs Sachin Vaze and Ors

Posted on November 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court directed the Respondents not to harass the petitioners by calling them daily. Respondents agreed to call the petitioners for inquiry twice in a week.

Hansa Research Group Pvt Ltd Vs Sachin Vaze and Ors on 07 Nov 2020

Here is the Writ petition:

Hansa Research Group Pvt Ltd Vs Sachin Vaze and Ors
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Hansa Research Group Pvt Ltd Vs Sachin Vaze and Ors Police Harassment | Leave a comment

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 09 Nov 2020

Posted on November 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Division Bench of Bombay High Court, while denying interim protection from arrest to Arnab Goswami, held that,

From Para 45,

45. The principle stated therein will equally apply to the exercise of this Court’s power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure while considering the applications for bail since the petitioner is already in Judicial custody. The legislature has provided specific remedy under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for applying for regular bail. Having regard to the alternate and efficacious remedy available to the petitioner under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, this Court has to exercise judicial restraint while entertaining application in the nature of seeking regular bail in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

and from Para 70,

70. In our opinion, the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to apply for regular bail. At the time of concluding the hearing of Applications, we had made it clear that if the petitioner, if so advised, to apply for regular bail under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the concerned Court, then, in that case, we have directed the concerned Court to decide the said
application within four days from filing of the same.

Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 09 Nov 2020

Here is the Bail application

Arnab Bail Application
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors Article 226 of The Constitution of India Catena of Landmark Judgments CrPC 173 - Report of Police Officer on Completion of Investigation CrPC 439 - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained Police Closure Reports | Leave a comment

Kovelamudi Kanika Dhillon Vs Kovelamudi Surya Prakash Rao on 26 Oct 2020

Posted on November 3, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Film maker K Raghavendra Rao’s son Prakash Kovelamudi‘s MCD case disposed of by Bombay High Court, waiving of 6-month cooling period as decided here, as his wife Kanika Dhillon was pregnant with another man.

Kovelamudi Kanika Dhillon Vs Kovelamudi Surya Prakash Rao on 26 Oct 2020

 

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 6 Months Cooling Period is Directional and not Mandatory Kovelamudi Kanika Dhillon Vs Kovelamudi Surya Prakash Rao Mutual Consent Divorce Sensational Or Peculiar Cases | Leave a comment

Samarvir Singh Vs UOI and Ors

Posted on October 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Samarvir Singh Vs UOI and Ors on 22 Oct 2020
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Samarvir Singh Vs UOI and Ors | Leave a comment

Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020

Posted on October 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Vagua allegations don’t take fake cases far. Bombay HS quashed the fake case of 498A IPC against the relatively.

From Para 14,

14. Nowadays, it has become a tendency to make vague and omnibus allegations, against every member of the family of the husband, implicating everybody under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it has become necessary for the Courts to carefully scrutinize the allegations and to find out if the allegations made really constitute an offence and meet the requirements of the law at least prima facie.

 

Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations Catena of Landmark Judgments CrPC 482 – FIR Quashed Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives IPC 498a Not Made Out On Parents or Relatives IPC 498A Quashed Legal Terrorism Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra | Leave a comment

Narendra K. Ambwani Vs Union of India on 13 Mar 2014

Posted on September 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Division Bench of Bombay High Court has passed the following directions to Passport Authorities, regarding renewal of passport, wherein Magistrate has given permission to do so.

6. This court held that the Rules have been framed under the Passport Act and under Rule 12, a passport other than for a child aged more than 15 years, shall be in force for a period of 10 years or 20 years as the case may be from the date of its issue.

 

10. In the circumstances, we propose to issue guidelines to be followed by the Respondents on receipt of the applications for renewal of the passports, in all cases, where the Magistrate’s court has directed that the passports may be renewed as per the “Rules”.

Here are the directions…

11. Accordingly, we issue the following directions :-
(a) In all cases where the Magistrate’s court directs renewal of the passports under the Rules, the Passport Rules, 1980 shall apply and passports other
than for a child aged more than 15 years shall be renewed for a period of ten years or twenty years as the case may be from the date of its issue. All
qualifying applicants are entitled to have passport renewed for atleast ten years. The Regional Passport Office shall renew the passports of such qualifying applicants atleast for ten years.
(b) In case where the passports are valid and the applicants hold valid visas on existing passport, the Regional Passport Officer shall issue the
additional booklet to the same passport provided the applicant had obtained permission to travel abroad.
(c) If the learned Magistrate passes an order making the reference to the said Notification No. G.S.R. 570(E) dated 26th August, 1993, the passport
shall be renewed only for such period that the Magistrate may specify in the order or as otherwise specified in the said Notification where the passport
of the applicant is valid for less than one year, the additional booklet may be issued subject to the orders to be obtained in this behalf only of the Magistrate concerned.

Narendra K. Ambwani Vs Union of India on 13 Mar 2014
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Maneka Gandhi Vs Union Of India Narendra K. Ambwani Vs Union of India Passport Renewal for 10 Years | Leave a comment

Ashok Roopchand Jain Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 04 Mar 2020

Posted on September 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Another good judgment based on landmark rulings from DB of Bombay High Court as well as Apex Court, on renewal of a Passport for full term of 10 years.

6. In view of the directions given by this Court in the said judgment, therefore, the Respondents were duty bound to follow the said directions and ought to have renewed thepassport for a period of ten years. It has to be borne in mind that whenever a criminal complaint is pending against an applicant, who wishes to travel abroad, the Magistrate alone has a jurisdiction to impose conditions regarding his right to travel abroad. If the Magistrate is satisfied that the Applicant should not be permitted to travel abroad, he can reject his application. However, when an application is made forrenewal of passport, the Passport Authorities have to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. It appears that the Central Government has issued a Notification by exercising a power vested in them under section 6(2)(f) of the Passports Act, 1967 and in the said Notification, it has been mentioned that the passport can be renewed for a period of one year. There being an ambiguity under the provisions of the Act and the Rules and the Notification issued by the Passport Authorities, this Court was pleased to clarify the said ambiguity in the case of Narendra Ambwani (supra). The Passport Authorities do not have the right to decide whether the accused has a right to travel abroad or not and that right is vested in the Magistrate, who can impose condition if an application is made, seeking permission to travel abroad. The Apex Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [(1978) 1 SCC 248 : 1978 SCR (2) 621)] has held that the right to travel for the purpose of business and service is a part of a fundamental right, subject to reasonable restrictions, which are imposed by the Act and by the Court. In the present case, the Applicant on account of his service as a Flight Person has to travel abroad continuously and there is no possibility of absconding since he has to return back along with the fight. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, we direct the Passport Authorities to renew the passport for a period of 10 years. It is clarified that, however, the Applicant will have to apply to the Magistrate seeking permission to travel abroad. If such an application is made, the Magistrate may impose such conditions as deem ft and proper.”

Ashok Roopchand Jain Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 04 Mar 2020
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Ashok Roopchand Jain Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors Maneka Gandhi Vs Union Of India Passport Renewal for 10 Years | Leave a comment

Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992

Posted on July 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court held that, “Any demand for presents after the marriage, but not having a connection with the marriage of the parties will not constitute a demand for dowry”

From Para 6,

Dowry in the sense of that expression contemplated by Act 28 of 1961 is a demand for property or valuable security having an inextricable nexus with the marriage. In other words it is a consideration from the side of the bride’s parents or relatives to the groom or his parents and/or guardian for the agreement to wed the bride-to-be. Where the demand for property or valuable security has no connection with the consideration for the marriage, it will not amount to a demand for dowry. In the instant case, the evidence has to be properly understood and thus viewed it is clear that what the appellants wanted was valuable presents to be made to appellant Mahadeo on the occasion of festivals like Deepavali. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the presents are customarily given to sons-in-law on festive occasions and giving of such presents is in no way connected with the wedding or marriage. It is a post-marriage expectation and the expectation and performance thereof once restricted to the affluents and the middle class, has now spread its tentacles to the poor also. The expectation is because of the relationship, but without any nexus to the agreement to marry. Therefore, it does not amount to dowry. Any demand for presents after the marriage, but not having a connection with the marriage of the parties will not constitute a demand for dowry. This is clear from the qualifying clause of section 2 in Act 28 of 1961 reproduced above.

Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992

Citations: [1993 (3) BomCR 473]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/553393/

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra DP Act 4 - Dowry Demand Not Proved DP Act 4 – Money Demand Not In Connection Of Marriage Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Satish Ragde Vs State of Maharashtra on 19 Jan 2021 January 27, 2021
  • State of Andhra Pradesh Vs AP State Election Commission and Ors on 25 Jan 2021 January 25, 2021
  • 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

Most Read Posts

  • All Reliefs from Judiciary (832 views)
  • Hindu Personal Code Laws (610 views)
  • Future Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India (589 views)
  • Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 06 August 2020 (560 views)
  • All Protection from Police High-handedness (498 views)
  • Exemption from Personal Appearance (u/s 205 CrPC) in Court Judgments (497 views)
  • Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (426 views)
  • State of Kerala Vs Rasheed on 30 October 2018 (418 views)
  • Centre for Public Interest Litigation Vs Union of India on 18 August 2020 (384 views)
  • All Bail Judgments (326 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained (216)Landmark Case (211)Work-In-Progress Article (188)Reportable Judgement (165)Catena of Landmark Judgments (121)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (99)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)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (44)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (43)3-Judge Bench Decision (37)1-Judge Bench Decision (37)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 (492)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 (76)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 (44)
  • 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 Magic Firewall API service issues January 25, 2021
    Jan 25, 18:51 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Jan 25, 18:41 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Jan 25, 18:22 UTCIdentified - Cloudflare has identified the issue and a fix is being implemented.Jan 25, 17:30 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is investigating issues with Cloudflare Magic Firewall APIs.These issues do […]
  • 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 […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 192.227.180.71 | SC January 25, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 41 | First: 2014-12-24 | Last: 2021-01-18
  • 69.9.44.90 | SDC January 25, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,272 | First: 2020-09-30 | Last: 2021-01-18
  • 88.255.60.198 | SDC January 25, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 24 | First: 2020-12-23 | Last: 2021-01-18
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC
pixel