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 Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification

Varshaben Himantlal Vejani Vs State of Gujarat on 15 Jul 2016

Posted on April 13 by ShadesOfKnife

Taking input from Kerala HC judgment here, Gujarat High Court held that, any agreement which has terms against to Public Policy, is void and not enforceable in law. Such agreements which prohibit right of maintenance are also void.

From Para 9,

9 In any case, all such issues are now well settled by few decisions of different Courts

[1] Rajesh R Nair v. Meera Babu reported in 2013 Cri. L.J. 3153, wherein Division Bench of Kerala High Court has held that waiver of right to maintenance by an agreement is not permissible because such agreement would be void agreement as against public policy. It would amount to ousting of jurisdiction of Magistrate and Family Court to entertain maintenance claim which cannot be permitted by law. Therefore, such agreement being void would be unenforceable and hence claim for maintenance cannot be rejected on the basis of such agreement of waiver of right to maintenance.
[2] In Rishikesh Singh alias T.R. Singh v. Kiran Gautam reported in 2015 Cri.L.J. 126, Chhattisgarh High Court has confirmed that decree of divorce obtained by mutual consent would be no ground to deny maintenance until wife has not remarried after divorce. It is further held that even if wife is junior advocate, it cannot be held that she is able to maintain herself and, therefore, she would be entitled for the maintenance.
[3] Smt. Vanamala v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta reported in [1995] 5 SCC 299, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also taken the same view that wife, who obtains divorce by mutual consent cannot be denied maintenance by virtue of section 125[4] and thereby restored the order of the Sessions Court, which has concluded that wife was entitled to maintenance notwithstanding divorce by mutual consent and remanded the matter to the trial Court for determining quantum of maintenance. Thereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court which held that wife is not entitled to maintenance once she has divorced her marriage by mutual consent. It would be appropriate to recollect here that for coming to such conclusion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied upon as many as three other decisions of different High Courts, which are quoted in such reported case and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, as on date, there are at least as many as five judgments including judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which confirm that a wife who obtains divorce by mutual consent cannot be denied maintenance by virtue of section 125 [4] of the Cr. P.C.

Varshaben Himantlal Vejani Vs State of Gujarat on 15 Jul 2016

Citations : [2016 SCC ONLINE GUJ 9136], [2017 AIC 172 524]

Other Sources:

https://mynation.net/docs/1095-2011/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e33e4a93261a1a744803

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Against Public Policy Catena of Landmark Judgments CrPC 125(4) - No Maintenance or Interim To Adulterer or Deserter Wife Reportable Judgement or Order Varshaben Himantlal Vejani Vs State of Gujarat | Leave a comment

Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar Vs Union of India on 06 Nov 2020

Posted on November 7, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Judgment, Gujarat High Court read down two rules and made sure that a Law graduate is allowed a provisional enrollment number so as to allow her to appear for AIBE.

From Para 33,

33. In such circumstances, referred to above, we read down Rules 1 and 2 respectively of the Bar Council of Gujarat (Enrollment) Rules so as to read that a person may be either in full or part time service or employment or is engaged in any trade, business or profession, who otherwise is qualified to be admitted as an Advocate shall be admitted as an Advocate, however, the enrollment certificate of such a person shall be withheld with the Bar Council and shall lie in deposit with the Council until the concerned person makes a declaration that the circumstances mentioned in Rule 2 have ceased to exist and that he or she has started his/her practice.

Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar Vs Union of India on 06 Nov 2020
Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Twinkle Rahul Mangaonkar Vs Union of India | Leave a comment

Bharat Desai Editor of Times of India and Anr Vs State of Gujarat on 18 Apr 2012

Posted on October 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single-judge bench of Gujarat High Court held as follows:

From Para 35,

35. From the contents of the news items published in the Times of India on 30th and 31st May, 2008 in the context of which the above referred two first information reports have been lodged, it is apparent that there is nothing therein which would cause disaffection amongst the members of the police officers against the State Government established by law. The contention that the comments regarding the State Government having appointed a person with a criminal background like the second respondent would induce in the minds of the subordinate officers an impression that they should not obey him and thus, induce disloyalty, does not merit acceptance inasmuch as what is stated in the articles is only an expression of an opinion as regards the act of the Government in appointing the second respondent as Commissioner of Police. If the contention of the second respondent were to be accepted no adverse comment could be made as regards the appointment/promotion of any officer belonging to the police force, which cannot be the intention of the legislature while enacting the said provision. The test for the invoking the said provision would be whether the news items in question has the propensity of evoking amongst the members of the police force feelings of disaffection towards the Government established by law in India or the effect of inducing any member of the police force to withhold his service or to commit a breach of discipline. Besides, the news item has to be read from the stand point of a reasonable man. On a bare reading of the articles in question from the armchair of a reasonable person, the same can, in no manner, be said to have the effect of causing disaffection towards the Government nor can the same be said to have the likelihood of inducing any member of the police force to withhold the service or to commit a breach of discipline. A mere comment on the wisdom of the State Government in appointing the second respondent as Commissioner of Police in the context of his background, can in no manner induce a prudent member of the police force to withhold his service or commit a breach of discipline, nor can such comment have the effect of creating disaffection against the Government. The provisions of section 3 of the said Act would, therefore, not be attracted in the facts of the present cases.

And then in Para 36,

36. Another aspect of the matter is that a perusal of the allegations made in the first information reports shows that the contents of the sections invoked against the applicants have been mentioned therein so as to make out an offence under section 124A IPC and section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922. In this regard it may be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijaya Rao v. State of Rajasthan and another (supra) wherein it has been held that mere reference to the expressions mentioned in the provision would not disclose commission of an offence, when the ingredients constituting the offence in question are conspicuously lacking. In the facts of the present case, merely
because in the first information reports, it has been stated that the articles in question have been published with the intention to cause hatred against senior police officers of the State Government established by law and that the same have been published as an attempt to cause contempt and hatred against the State Government, the same would not fall within the ambit of section 124A IPC or section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922, when the ingredients for constitution of an offence under section 124A IPC and section 3 of the said Act are woefully lacking.

Bharat Desai Editor, Times of India and Anr Vs State of Gujarat on 18 Apr 2012

 

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Bharat Desai Editor of Times of India and Anr Vs State of Gujarat Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act Section 3 - Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Ashwinbhai Kamsubhai Rathod Vs Bhailalbhai Kalubhai Pandav BM Chudasama and others on 12 May 2020

Posted on May 13, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Gujarat has quashed the December 2017 election of Gujarat’s Law Minister, Bhupendrasinh Manubha Chudasama to the State’s Legislative Assembly as violative of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951

Latest: The LawMin appealed against High Court judgment at Supreme Court.

Ashwinbhai Kamsubhai Rathod Vs Bhailalbhai Kalubhai Pandav BM Chudasama and others on 12 May 2020

Citations: []

Other Source links: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/such-an-election-should-not-be-permitted-to-hold-the-field-gujarat-hc-quashes-state-law-minister-bm-chudasamas-2017-election

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Ashwinbhai Kamsubhai Rathod Vs Bhailalbhai Kalubhai Pandav BM Chudasama and others Election Matter Reportable Judgement or Order Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Hardik Bharatbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat on 18 December, 2015

Posted on January 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment, Justice Shri JB Pardiwala had passed some critical remarks against Reservations in India and had irked 50+ Members of Parliament who triggered his Impeachment process in Rajya Sabha. Due to this he had to strike down a paragraph from the Judgment. Read the news clippings from this judgment and subsequent removals of the concerned paragraph from judgment.

Here is the Para 62 from the original judgment.

62. If I am asked by any one to name two things, which has destroyed this country or rather, has not allowed the country, to progress in the right direction, then the same is, (i) Reservation and (ii) Corruption.It is very shameful for any citizen of this country to ask for reservation after 65 years of independence.When our Constitution was framed, it was understood that the reservation would remain for a period of 10 years, but unfortunately, it has continued even after 65 years of independence. The biggest threats, today, for the country is corruption. The countrymen should rise and fight against corruption at all levels, rather than shedding blood and indulging in violence for the reservation. The reservation has only played the role of an amoeboid monster sowing seeds of discord amongst the people. The importance of merit, in any society, cannot be understated. The merit stands for a positive goal and when looked at instrumentally, stands for “rewarding those actions that are considered good”. Then, this instrumental nature of merit that should be given importance – emphasizing on and rewarding merit is a means towards achieving what is regarded as good in the society. The parody of the situation is that India must be the only country wherein some of the citizens crave to be called backward.

Hardik Bharatbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat 18 December, 2015 (Original Order)

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38630401/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e0fa87607dba3896607933 (with original version of judgment)


Then the News follows

Patidar quota agitation_ Gujarat High Court calls reservation an ‘amoeboid monster’ _ Cities News,The Indian Express

Then the Judge removes the Para 62

Sitting Gujarat HC judge does U-turn on remarks in Hardik Patel case
Hardik Bharatbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat 18 December, 2015 (Correction Order)

The following is the Revised Judgment, after removing Para 62

Hardik Bharatbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat 18 December, 2015 (Corrected Order)

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

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Hardik Bharatbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat Revised Judgment

Jayesh Khemchandbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat on 9 February, 2017

Posted on January 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the Regular Bail application of the Rapist Jayesh Patel that got rejected by Gujarat High Court.

Jayesh Khemchandbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat on 9 February, 2017

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/155267301/


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

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 439 - Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail Jayesh Khemchandbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat Regular Bail Denied Sensational Or Peculiar Cases

Jayeshbhai Khemchandbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat on 17 March, 2017

Posted on January 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The Rapist Jayesh Patel has prayed for a copy of the medical reports to be given to him under section 207 CrPC, which were purported to prove the crime of rape he committed. His prayer was denying by the Gujarat High Court stating that the accused will be entitled to such documents during the course of trial and may not be available at the current stage where he would like to file Discharge petition u/s 239 CrPC.

Jayeshbhai Khemchandbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat on 17 March, 2017

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/21681381/


Rapist’s Regular Bail application rejection order is here.

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 309 - Power to Postpone or Adjourn Proceedings Jayeshbhai Khemchandbhai Patel Vs State of Gujarat Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes

State of Gujarat Vs Ashokkumar Lavjiram Joshi on 6 April, 2018

Posted on January 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Referring to this judgment here, Justice Shri J,B. Pardiwala has held that any document can be given in evidence other than those that were submitted to Court us 207 CrPC at any point in time of the trial. Accused is entitled to a copy of such document.

State of Gujarat Vs Ashokkumar Lavjiram Joshi on 6 April, 2018

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/195549824/


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

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 173 - Report of Police Officer on Completion of Investigation CrPC 173(5) - Prosecution Can Produce Additional Documents CrPC 207 - Supply to the accused of copy of police report and other documents State of Gujarat Vs Ashokkumar Lavjiram Joshi

Gujarat Pipavav Port Limited Vs Sharda Steel Corporation on 26 March, 2012

Posted on March 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Gurajat held in this judgment that, disposal of perjury can be done at the end of a main petition/case but it does not stop magistrate to form an opinion by conducting a preliminary inquiry.

Gujarat Pipavav Port Limited Vs Sharda Steel Corporation on 26 March, 2012

 

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Gujarat Pipavav Port Limited Vs Sharda Steel Corporation Perjury - Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory Perjury - Prima Facie Opinion of Perjury Perjury Under 340 CrPC | Leave a comment

Babubhai Mervanbhai Patel Vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary and Anr on 26 August, 2010

Posted on March 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

A fine of Rs.40,000/- was levied on the pejurer for lying repeatedly on affidavits as well as under oath by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court.

Babubhai Mervanbhai Patel Vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary and Anr on 26 August, 2010
Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Babubhai Mervanbhai Patel Vs State Of Gujarat Through Secretary and Anr Perjury - Cost Levied or Imprisonment For Perjury | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Varshaben Himantlal Vejani Vs State of Gujarat on 15 Jul 2016 April 13, 2021
  • Rajesh R. Nair Vs Meera Babu on 5 Mar 2013 April 13, 2021
  • Bhima Razu Prasad Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 12 Mar 2021 April 6, 2021
  • Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh on 30 Jul 2020 April 5, 2021
  • Lingam Seetharammayya and Ors Vs State of AP and Ors on 16 Mar 2021 April 5, 2021

Most Read Posts

  • Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (844 views)
  • Government Guesthouse at Kapuluppada, Visakhapatnam (479 views)
  • Dr Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs State of AP and Ors (452 views)
  • In Re To issues certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials (409 views)
  • Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020 (401 views)
  • IPC 498A is a Compoundable Case in Andhra Pradesh (385 views)
  • Default Bail under Code of Criminal Procedure (311 views)
  • Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani Vs Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa on 8 April 1996 (309 views)
  • Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate Vs Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate on 16 April, 2003 (307 views)
  • Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020 (249 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (236)Landmark Case (230)Reportable Judgement or Order (196)Work-In-Progress Article (196)Catena of Landmark Judgments (146)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (127)Sandeep Pamarati (82)Article 21 of The Constitution of India (64)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (50)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (47)Summary Post (46)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (46)1-Judge Bench Decision (45)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (44)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)Advocate Antics (27)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (520)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (271)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (138)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (85)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (79)General Study Material (53)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (46)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (45)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (40)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (38)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (35)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (34)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (30)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (22)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (21)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (16)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (12)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

  • April 2021 (14)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • 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

  • Elevated number of 530/503 errors from Amsterdam, Netherlands - (AMS) April 14, 2021
    Apr 14, 00:23 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Apr 13, 17:35 UTCInvestigating - Customers reaching Amsterdam, Netherlands - (AMS) would have experienced an elevated number of 530/503 errors.
  • Cloudflare control plane API April 13, 2021
    Apr 13, 22:12 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Apr 13, 21:57 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Apr 13, 21:52 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare control plane API is experiencing a partial outage. This impacts the administration of SSL for SaaS , and Cloudflare Pages. SSL termination and Pages at […]
  • Distributed Web Resolver Issues April 12, 2021
    Apr 12, 18:00 UTCResolved - Queries to the Cloudflare Distributed Web Resolver for the Distributed Web Gateway were unsuccessful on April 12th 2020 from 18:00 to 00:00 UTC. Websites served by the gateway during this time may have displayed errors or been inaccessible.

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 212.129.2.166 | SD April 13, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 26,333 | First: 2018-11-27 | Last: 2021-04-13
  • 104.223.85.87 | S April 13, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 10 | First: 2021-03-27 | Last: 2021-04-13
  • 190.247.240.155 | SD April 13, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 128 | First: 2021-04-13 | Last: 2021-04-13
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC
pixel