Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors on 7 August 2014

Posted on May 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This judgment from Supreme Court hits the final nail of those persons who say a High Court does not have territorial jurisdiction beyond it’s borders. It also cites Kusum Ingots where by Supreme Court has expressed an Obiter Dicta (Judicial opinion, different from ratio decidendi, which is word of Judge based on case facts) to the same effect.

From Para 11

11. On a plain reading of the amended provisions in clause (2), it is clear that now the High Court can issue a writ when the person or the authority against whom the writ is issued is located outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action wholly or partially arises within the court’s territorial jurisdiction. Cause of action for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, for all intent and purpose must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The expression cause of action has not been defined either in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Constitution. Cause of action is bundle of facts which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in the suit before he can succeed. The term “cause of action” as appearing in clause (2) came up for consideration time and again before this Court.

Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors on 7 August 2014

Citations: [2014 AIR SC 3607], [2014 AJR 4 410], [2014 ALR 106 710], [2014 AWC SC 5 4947], [2014 SCSUPPL CHN 5 192], [2014 FLR 143 1015], [2014 JLJR 4 69], [2014 PLJR 4 227], [2014 SCALE 9 244], [2014 SCC 9 329], [2014 SCJ 7 307], [2014 SCT SC 4 129], [2014 SLJ SC 3 175], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 610], [2014 AIC 142 193], [2014 ALLLR 106 710], [2014 KHC 0 4507], [2014 AIOL 481], [2014 JT 9 46], [2014 SLT 6 703], [2014 SUPREME 5 689], [2015 LW 1 810], [2014 CALHN 5 192]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70426214/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af57e4b01497114161bb

This was followed in this 2-judge bench judgment of Allahabad High Court here.

In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. 4.06.2011 Vs UOI and Ors on 23 February 2012

Posted on May 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. 4.06.2011 Vs UOI and Ors on 23 February 2012

Citations: []

Other Source links:

The index page is here.

Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @ Sharuti on 08 April 2019

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court upheld that Brother-in-law who is in a domestic relationship with the applicant has to pay the Interim maintanance.

Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @ Sharuti on 08 April 2019

Citations: []

Other Source links:

The index page is here.

Prakash Nagardas Dubal-Shaha Vs Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and Ors on 22 April 2016

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that undecided divorce case does not affect the maintainability of a DV case.

Prakash Nagardas Dubal-Shaha Vs Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and Ors on 22 April 2016

Citations: []

Other Source links:

The index page is here.

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court In this case, upheld the view taken by the Delhi High Court that the conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into force of the Domestic Violence Act, could be taken into consideration while passing an order under Sections 18, 19 and 20 thereof. Even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to the protection of the Act.

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012

Two more Orders after the above one were passed.

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 04 April 2012

Order u/s 19

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2013

Citations: []

Other Source links:

The index page is here.

Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that Women can also be made respondents in a DV case.

From Paras 12, 13 and 14,

12. From the above definition it would be apparent that although Section 2(q) defines a respondent to mean any adult male person, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, the proviso widens the scope of the said definition by including a relative of the husband or male partner within the scope of a complaint, which may be filed by an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage.
13. It is true that the expression “female” has not been used in the proviso to Section 2(q) also, but, on the other hand, if the Legislature intended to
exclude females from the ambit of the complaint, which can be filed by an aggrieved wife, females would have been specifically excluded, instead of
it being provided in the proviso that a complaint could also be filed against a relative of the husband or the male partner. No restrictive meaning has been given to the expression “relative”, nor has the said expression been specifically defined in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to make it specific to males only.
14. In such circumstances, it is clear that the legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of the husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011

Citations: []

Other Source links:

After more than 5 long years, Supreme Court has struck down two words “Adult male” from Sec 2(q) of PWDV Act 2005 here.

The index page is here.

D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal on 21 October 2010

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Katju held as follows:

33. In our opinion a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not
being formally married :-
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
In our opinion a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties
must have lived together in a ‘shared household’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship’.

D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal on 21 October 2010

Citations: []

Other Source links:

Kiran Bedi Vs Committee of Inquiry and Anr on 04 January 1989

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court cited Bhagawad Gita as follows:

The reason for the importance attached with regard to the matter of safeguarding the reputation of a person being prejudicially affected in Clause (b) of Section 8-B of the Act is not far to seek.
The following words of caution uttered by the Lord to Arjun in Bhagwad Gita with regard to dishonour or loss of reputation may usefully be quoted:
“Akirtinchapi Bhutani Kathaishyanti te-a-vyayam, Sambhavitasya Chakirtir maranadatirichyate”
(Men will recount thy perpetual dishonour, and to one highly esteemed, dishonour exceedeth death)

Kiran Bedi Vs Committee of Inquiry and Anr on 04 January 1989

Citations: []

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/220787/ (Earlier Judgment of SC: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/781145/)

Public Interest Foundation and Ors Vs Union of India and Anr on 25 September 2018

Posted on May 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court respecting separation of powers in the Indian democracy, acknowledged that there are criminals to a large part in Parliament and in State Legislatures but held that it cannot legislate on behalf of Parliament. Still it issue some guidelines as follows.

Each contesting candidate shall fill up the form as provided by the Election Commission and the form must contain all the particulars as required therein.
It shall state, in bold letters, with regard to the criminal cases pending against the candidate.
If a candidate is contesting an election on the ticket of a particular party, he/she is required to inform the party about the criminal cases pending against him/her.
The concerned political party shall be obligated to put up on its website the aforesaid information pertaining to candidates having criminal antecedents.
The candidate as well as the concerned political party shall issue a declaration in the widely circulated newspapers in the locality about the antecedents of the candidate and also give wide publicity in the electronic media. When we say wide publicity, we mean that the same shall be done at least thrice after filing of the nomination papers.

Public Interest Foundation and Ors Vs Union of India and Anr on 25 September 2018

Citations: [(2019) 3 SCC 224]

Other Source links: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/09/25/candidates-with-criminal-antecedents-parliament-has-exclusive-jurisdiction-to-lay-down-disqualification-for-membership-court-cannot-legislate-sc/ or https://indiankanoon.org/doc/146283621/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5baaa0749eff430ce652f5c8

The directions given in this Judgment were not followed by Political parties and their candidates, Hence a contempt petition was filed for violating Supreme Court Orders here.

Rambabu Singh Thakur Vs Sunil Arora on 13 February 2020

Posted on May 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Rohinton F Nariman has passed the following directions, sitting in a division bench along with Justice S. Ravindra Bhat,

From Para 4,

4. We have also noted that the political parties offer no explanation as to why candidates with pending criminal cases are selected as candidates in the first place. We therefore issue the following directions in exercise of our constitutional powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India:
1) It shall be mandatory for political parties [at the Central and State election level] to upload on their website detailed information regarding individuals with pending criminal cases (including the nature of the offences, and relevant particulars such as whether charges have been framed, the concerned Court, the case number etc.) who have been selected as candidates, along with the reasons for such selection, as also as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates.
2) The reasons as to selection shall be with reference to the qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidate concerned, and not mere “winnability” at the polls.
3) This information shall also be published in:
(a) One local vernacular newspaper and one national newspaper;
(b) On the official social media platforms of the political party, including Facebook & Twitter.
4) These details shall be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate or not less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier.
5) The political party concerned shall then submit a report of compliance with these directions with the Election Commission within 72 hours of the selection of the said candidate.
6) If a political party fails to submit such compliance report with the Election Commission, the Election Commission shall bring such non-compliance by the political party concerned to the notice of the Supreme Court as being in contempt of this Court’s orders/directions.

Rambabu Singh Thakur Vs Sunil Arora on 13 February 2020

Citations: [2020 SCC OnLine SC 178]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178919210/ or https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/02/13/sc-directs-political-parties-to-publish-criminal-antecedents-of-candidates-give-reasons-for-their-selection/ or https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/rambabu-singh-thakur-versus-sunil-arora-ors

The original Judgment is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification

Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors on 7 August 2014

In Re Ramlila Maidan Incident Dt. 4.06.2011 Vs UOI and Ors on 23 February 2012

Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @ Sharuti on 08 April 2019

Prakash Nagardas Dubal-Shaha Vs Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and Ors on 22 April 2016

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012

Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011

D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal on 21 October 2010

Kiran Bedi Vs Committee of Inquiry and Anr on 04 January 1989

Public Interest Foundation and Ors Vs Union of India and Anr on 25 September 2018

Rambabu Singh Thakur Vs Sunil Arora on 13 February 2020