Sambhaji and Ors vs Gangabai and Ors on 20 Nov 2008

Posted on December 4, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that. ‘a Civil/Trial Court can accept the written statement even after statutory time limit of 90 days‘, as prescribed under Order 8 Rule 1.

15. In the instance case the trial court proceeded on the erroneous premises that there was no scope to accept the written statement after 90 days. The High Court by the impugned order held that though it had power, no case was made out to accept the prayer. We have considered the grounds indicated by the appellants seeking acceptance of the written statement filed belatedly. They cannot be considered to be trivial or without substance. In the case of this nature where close relatives are litigants a liberal approach is called for. In the circumstances we set aside the impugned order of the High Court affirming the order passed by the trial court refusing acceptance of the written statement. The matter is not very complex. We request the trial court to complete trial of the suit within the period of six months. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs.

Sambhaji and Ors Vs Gangabai and Ors on 20 Nov 2008

Citations : [2009 ELT SC 240 1612008 AIR SC SUPP 7672008 SUPREME 8 7142008 SCC 17 1172009 BOMCR SC 1 812008 JT 13 442008 SCALE 15 5222008 AIOL 13332008 SLT 9 2982009 ALLMR SC 1 9212008 SCR 16 4692009 ELT 240 161]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90423/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae73e4b0149711413e98

In Re To issues certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials

Posted on November 30, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

These are the recommendations prepared by Amicus curie in March 2020.

In Re To issues certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials

Supreme Court issued notices to all HCs and State Administrations to hear them and then pass Draft Rules.

Inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials on 27 Oct 2020

Final Decision on 24-Apr-2021. [(2021) 10 SCC 598]

In Re To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies on 20 Apr 2021

In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation

Posted on November 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court in this Suo moto Civil Writ Petition, had extended the limitation period from 15 March 2020 until further orders, due to the situation created by COVID-19

In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation on 23 Mar 2020

On 06-05-2020, The limitation was extended for all periods of limitation prescribed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 shall be extended with effect from 15.03.2020 till further orders.

In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation on 06 May 2020

RBI was allowed to decide on the extension of any limitation that may be available under Banking Regulation Act,1949.

With reference to the prayer, that the period of validity of a cheque be extended, we find that the said period has not been prescribed by any Statute but it is a period prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 35-A of the Banking Regulation Act,1949. We do not consider it appropriate to interfere with the period prescribed by the Reserve Bank of India, particularly, since the entire banking system functions on the basis of the period so prescribed.
The Reserve Bank of India may in its discretion, alter such period as it thinks fit. Ordered accordingly.

Also on 20-07-2020, Whatsapp was allowed as one of the mode of serving notices.

Service of notices, summons and exchange of pleadings/documents, is a requirement of virtually every legal proceeding. Service of notices, summons
and pleadings etc. have not been possible during the period of lockdown because this involves visits to post offices, courier companies or physical delivery of notices, summons and pleadings. We, therefore, consider it appropriate to direct that such services of all the above may be effected by e-mail, FAX, commonly used instant messaging services, such as WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal etc. However, if a party intends to effect service by means of said instant messaging services, we direct that in addition thereto, the party must also effect service of the same document/documents by e-mail, simultaneously on the same date.

In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation on 10 Jul 2020

Supreme Court heard arguments and reserved it’s orders. Related news here.

In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation on 04 Mar 2021

Final Order passed on 08-03-2021.

4 In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation on 08 Mar 2021

On 27-04-2021, within 1 month of passing final order and disposing the petition, COVID-19 cases started to rise, so Supreme Court had to restore the Order passed on 23 Mar 2020

5 In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation on 27 Apr 2021

On 23-09-2021, Supreme Court ended the relaxation given to the limitation via March 8th Order.

7 In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation on 23 Sep 2021

On 10-01-2022, Supreme Court had to restore the order dt: 23-03-2020 given relaxation to the limitation, until 28-02-2022.

8 In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation on 10 Jan 2022

Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs UOI and Anr on 12 Apr 2012

Posted on November 25, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Constitutional Validity of provisions of ‘Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (for short “the 2009 Act”) with respect to the unaided non-minority schools is decided in affirmative in this judgment by a 3-judge bench with a 2-1 majority.

Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs UOI and Anr on 12 Apr 2012

Citations : [2012 AIOL 168], [2012 SUPREME 3 305], [2012 AIR SC 3445], [2012 SCC 6 102], [2012 SCALE 4 272], [2012 SCC 6 1], [2012 SLT 3 370], [2012 AIR SC 3400], [2012 RCR CIVIL SC 2 775], [2012 BOMCR SC 6 711], [2012 JT 4 137], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 340], [2012 CUTLT 114 862], [2012 AWC SC 4 4260], [2012 MLJ SC 3 993], [2012 CLT 114 862], [2012 KARLJ 3 177], [2012 JLJR 2 324], [2012 CUT LT 114 862], [2012 AIR SCW 3400]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154958944/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af1ee4b0149711415aa3

Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India and Anr.

Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 4 Jul 2013

Posted on November 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court passed these guidelines when a witness is called or recalled for evidence.

a) Whether the Court is right in thinking that the new evidence is needed by it? Whether the evidence sought to be led in under Section 311 is noted by the Court for a just decision of a case?
b) The exercise of the widest discretionary power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should ensure that the judgment should not be rendered on inchoate,
inconclusive speculative presentation of facts, as thereby the ends of justice would be defeated.
c) If evidence of any witness appears to the Court to be essential to the just decision of the case, it is the power of the Court to summon and examine or recall and re-examine any such person.
d) The exercise of power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. should be resorted to only with the object of finding out the truth or obtaining proper proof for
such facts, which will lead to a just and correct decision of the case.
e) The exercise of the said power cannot be dubbed as filling in a lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of the case make it
apparent that the exercise of power by the Court would result in causing serious prejudice to the accused, resulting in miscarriage of justice.
f) The wide discretionary power should be exercised judiciously and not arbitrarily.
g) The Court must satisfy itself that it was in every respect essential to examine such a witness or to recall him for further examination in order to
arrive at a just decision of the case.
h) The object of Section 311 Cr.P.C. simultaneously imposes a duty on the Court to determine the truth and to render a just decision.
i) The Court arrives at the conclusion that additional evidence is necessary, not because it would be impossible to pronounce the judgment without it, but because there would be a failure of justice without such evidence being considered.
j) Exigency of the situation, fair play and good sense should be the safe guard, while exercising the discretion. The Court should bear in mind that no party in a trial can be foreclosed from correcting errors and that if proper evidence was not adduced or a relevant material was not brought on record due to any inadvertence, the Court should be magnanimous in permitting such mistakes to be rectified.
k) The Court should be conscious of the position that after all the trial is basically for the prisoners and the Court should afford an opportunity to them in the fairest manner possible. In that parity of reasoning, it would be safe to err in favour of the accused getting an opportunity rather than protecting the prosecution against possible prejudice at the cost of the accused. The Court should bear in mind that improper or capricious exercise of such a discretionary power, may lead to undesirable results.
l) The additional evidence must not be received as a disguise or to change the nature of the case against any of the party.
m) The power must be exercised keeping in mind that the evidence that is likely to be tendered, would be germane to the issue involved and also
ensure that an opportunity of rebuttal is given to the other party.
n) The power under Section 311 Cr.P.C. must therefore, be invoked by the Court only in order to meet the ends of justice for strong and valid reasons and the same must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. The Court should bear in mind that fair trial entails the interest of the accused, the victim and the society and, therefore, the grant of fair and proper opportunities to the persons concerned, must be ensured being a constitutional goal, as well as a human right.

Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 4 Jul 2013

Citations : [2013 AD SC 8 583], [2013 AIR SC 3081], [2013 JLJR 3 447], [2013 JCC 3 2179], [2013 JT SC 11 118], [2013 NCC 2 582], [2013 PLJR 4 34], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL 3 726], [2013 SCALE 8 316], [2013 SCC 14 461], [2013 SCR 7 420], [2013 UC 3 1631], [2014 SCC CRI 4 256], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 577], [2013 AIC 128 29], [2013 AIR SC 0 4179], [2013 AIR SC 1746], [2013 CRLJ SC 3777], [2013 SLT 6 571], [2013 SUPREME 4 621], [2013 AIOL 432], [2013 KCCR SN 4 396], [2013 SCJ 7 986], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 35], [2013 AIR SCW 0 4179]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3583407/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af2be4b0149711415b41

Parveen Vs State of Haryana on 16 Nov 2020

Posted on November 19, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Order from the 3-Judge bench of Supreme Court, it was held that, if the advocate provided by District Court Legal Aid Authority is absent from the proceedings, High Court ought to have appointed an Amicus to take up the case forward.

From Para 7,

7 The High Court, in our view, was manifestly in error in rejecting the revision in default, on the ground that the appellant’s advocate had remained absent on the previous four occasions. Since the revision before the High Court arose out of an order of the conviction under the Arms Act, the High Court ought to have appointed an Amicus Curiae in the absence of counsel, who has been engaged by the Legal Services Authority, Rohtak. The liberty of a citizen cannot be taken away in this manner.

Parveen Vs State of Haryana on 16 Nov 2020

Here is the SLP:

SLP-Criminal - Parveen v. State of Haryana

Roshni Biswas Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 28 Oct 2020

Posted on November 17, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court sensed that, there is a need to ensure that the power under section 41A is not used to intimidate, threaten and harass. Thereafter, granted an ad-interim stay on High Court order compelling the petitioner to appear before Police u/s 41A CrPC.

05 Roshni Biswas Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 28 Oct 2020

Shailaja Patil Vs Khobbanna Patil on 18 Jan 2017

Posted on November 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Order, Supreme Court held as follows,

That apart, we find that the High Court has proceeded on the basis that the appellant No.1 was capable of earning and that is one of the reasons for reducing the maintenance granted to her by the Family Court. Whether the appellant No.1 is capable of earning or whether she is actually earning are two different requirements. Merely because the appellant No.1 is capable of earning is not, in our opinion, sufficient reason to reduce the maintenance awarded by the Family Court.

This means, due to the mistake of High Court in assuming that being capable means earning, Supreme Court clarified that it is NOT so. This principle should apply to men as much as it was applied to women.

And, it is not clear why no Court is asking this question: Why are your needs/expenses out of sync with your income? Just because of the termination of financial assistance from husband?

Shailaja Patil Vs Khobbanna Patil on 18 Jan 2017

Citations : [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 2692017 AIR SC 11742017 AKR 2 3142017 ALLMR CRI 31072017 CRILJ 23062017 KCCR 3 18092017 OLR 1 9212017 RLW SC 3 24902017 RCR CIVIL 2 7012017 RCR CRIMINAL 2 4972017 SCC ONLINE SC 2692017 AIR SC 1174]

Other Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a65cbb44a93263320779de5

Here is the High Court Order.

Shailaja Patil Vs Khobbanna Patil on 17 Apr 2013

Note: The mistake is this… All Assumptions are highlighted…

Petitioner is said to be working as a Lecturer and in a matrimonial dispute between him and the 1st respondent wife, the Family Court has ordered to pay maintenance of Rs.15,000/- to the wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to the son. According to the petitioner’s counsel, the 1st respondent is also working as a Teacher and is earning.
However, according to the counsel representing the 1st respondent, there is no proof of income being produced and she has no permanent source of income. Accordingly, he has sought for rejection of the application filed by the petitioner and to enhance the maintenance awarded.
Having regard to the fact that the wife is also capable of earning, she could be awarded Rs.6,000/- per month and the son could be awarded Rs.6,000/- per month. Ordered accordingly. Amount in deposit be adjusted towards arrears and also for future payment. Amount in deposit be released in favour of the respondent wife and child, as per the modified award.

Indian Olympic Association Vs Kerala Olympic Association and Ors on 06 Nov 2020

Posted on November 13, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Single-judge bench held that, if a if a court has no jurisdiction to try a lis, it is good for the party raising the issue of jurisdiction to seek the dismissal/return of the proceedings, rather than seeking a transfer.

From Para 14,

14. Suffice it to say that if a court has no jurisdiction to try a lis, it is good for the party raising the issue of jurisdiction to seek the dismissal/return of the proceedings, rather than seeking a transfer. I fail to understand the anxiety of the petitioner, to make an irregular proceeding initiated by the first respondent, regular. The decision in Arvee Industries (supra) is no answer to this contention, since this Court did not say in that case that an invalid proceeding, may be validated, at the instance of the opposite party by transferring the same to a court having jurisdiction.

Indian Olympic Association Vs Kerala Olympic Association and Ors on 06 Nov 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :

State Of Goa Vs Jose Maria Albert Vales @ Robert Vales on 18 Aug 2017

Posted on November 13, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

2-Judge bench held that without prima facie opinion in a complaint made otherwise than a police complaint, invoking of perjury u/s 340 CrPC or 341 CrPC is indefensible.

From Para 58,

58. We are thus of the firm opinion that a Trial Magistrate, on receipt of a complaint under Section 340 and/or Section 341 of the Code, if there is a preliminary inquiry and adequate materials in support of the considerations impelling action under the above provisions are available, would be required to treat such complaint to constitute a case, as if instituted on police report and proceed in accordance with law. However, in absence of any preliminary inquiry or adequate materials, it would be open for the Trial Magistrate, if he genuinely feels it necessary, in the interest of justice and to avoid unmerited prosecution to embark on a summary inquiry to collect further materials and then decide the future course of action as per law. In both the eventualities, the Trial Magistrate has to be cautious, circumspect, rational, objective and further informed with the overwhelming caveat that the offence alleged is one affecting the administration of justice, requiring a responsible, uncompromising and committed approach to the issue referred to him for inquiry and trial, as the case may be. In no case, however, in the teeth of Section 343(1), the procedure prescribed for cases instituted otherwise than on police report would either be relevant or applicable qua the complaints under Section 340 and/or 341 of the Cr.P.C.

And from Final Para,

60. In view of the determination as above, the approach of the High Court is wholly indefensible, as in the face of Section 343(1) of the Cr.P.C., the procedure prescribed for cases instituted otherwise than on police report is not attracted qua a complaint under Section 340 and/or Section 341 of the Code. Even assuming that the Trial Magistrate had examined few witnesses in support of the complaint, it was in the form of a summary inquiry, to be satisfied as to whether the materials on record would justify the framing of charge against the respondent or not and nothing further. Any other view would fly in the face of the ordainment of Section 343(1) of the Cr.P.C. and thus cannot receive judicial imprimatur. The impugned judgment of the High Court in quashing the charge framed by the Trial Magistrate and remanding the case to him to follow the procedure outlined for cases, instituted otherwise than on police report, under Chapter XIX-B is on the face of it unsustainable in law and on facts. It is thus set aside. The appeals are allowed. The Trial Magistrate would proceed from the stage of framing of charge, strictly in compliance of the letter and spirit of the precept contained in Section 343(1) of the Code. We make it clear that we have not offered any observation on the merits of the charge and the Trial Court would further the proceedings in accordance with law.

State Of Goa Vs Jose Maria Albert Vales @ Robert Vales on 18 Aug 2017

Citations : [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1021], [2017 ALLCC 101 330], [2017 CCR SC 4 28], [2017 JCC 4 2245], [2017 RCR CRIMINAL 3 981], [2017 SCALE 9 527], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1021]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/194410529/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a65cbaf4a93263320778706

Index of Perjury Case laws is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification

Sambhaji and Ors vs Gangabai and Ors on 20 Nov 2008

In Re To issues certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials

In Re Cognizance for Extension of Limitation

Society for Un-aided Private Schools of Rajasthan Vs UOI and Anr on 12 Apr 2012

Rajaram Prasad Yadav Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 4 Jul 2013

Parveen Vs State of Haryana on 16 Nov 2020

Roshni Biswas Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 28 Oct 2020

Shailaja Patil Vs Khobbanna Patil on 18 Jan 2017

Indian Olympic Association Vs Kerala Olympic Association and Ors on 06 Nov 2020

State Of Goa Vs Jose Maria Albert Vales @ Robert Vales on 18 Aug 2017