Supreme Court discussed who can be a Sterling witness on whose deposition can a conviction be based and this packed this false rape case into Dustbin.
Citations: [AIR 2020 SC 985]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68886715/ or https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/santosh-prasad-santosh-kumar-versus-the-state-of-bihar
Justice Vineet Saran sitting in a 5-Judge bench delivered this reference judgment on the following two questions of law.
Question-1
Whether the District Forum has power to extend the time for filing of response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days, as envisaged under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act?
Answered as follows:
To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act
Question-2
What would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
Answered as follows:
the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.
Citations: [AIR 2020 SC 1267], [2020 SCC OnLine SC 287]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96395504/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e69d2383321bc624fea2d34
Supreme Court has rejected all of the interim application filed by the contemnors and held that they have no valid grounds to entertain the interim applications challenging the very judgment itself and for recalling of judgment.
Father given custody of minor girl-child.
Citations: AIR 2020 SC 577
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144083733/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e2585f53321bc6def498ecc
https://www.reddyandreddy.org/parent-who-is-denied-custody-still-has-the-right-to-talk-to-the-child-everyday/
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court decision of holding the Police officer who executed the cancelled Non-bailable warrant against the practicing advocate. It was also held that Police officer was sufficiently reprimanded. The High Court had also granted a compensation of Rs.2000/- from the personal account of Police officer to the Advocate!!! I am wondering if the compensation granted is a fair (to the advocate) and deterrent (to the police officer). In my opinion, at least 3 months salary must be given as compensation.
Citations: [2012 SCC 9 791], [2011 AIOL 663], [2012 AIR BOMR 1 197], [2011 AIR SC 3393], [2011 AIR SC 5347], [2011 ANJ SC SUPP 2 65], [2012 BOMCR CRI SC 1 260], [2011 JT 10 253], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 212], [2011 SCALE 10 233], [2011 SLT 7 1], [2012 SCC CRI 4 679]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934058/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd363607dba63d7e6e2d9
Index of Police Personnel Antics is here.
Supreme Court was constrained to take a view different from the one taken by it in Bharatha Matha on Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act.
From Para 41,
41. In the instant case, Section 16(3) as amended, does not impose any restriction on the property right of such children except limiting it to the property of their parents. Therefore, such children will have a right to whatever becomes the property of their parents, whether self acquired or ancestral.
But thankfully, referred the matter to a larger bench in March 2011.
43. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter should be reconsidered by a larger Bench and for that purpose the records of the case be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench.
Citations: [2011 SCJ 4 4], [2011 AIOL 244], [2011 CTC 2 810], [2013 ILR 4291], [2011 SCC 11 1], [2011 MWN CIVIL 3 528], [2011 MLJ 5 392], [2011 GLH 1 757], [2011 JCR SC 2 259], [2011 CLT SC 112 469], [2011 LW 3 255], [2011 SCALE 4 189], [2011 SCR 4 675], [2011 AIC 101 73], [2011 SCSUPPL CHN 4 50], [2011 AIR SC 2447], [2011 CALLT 3 58], [2011 KCCR 2 1531], [2011 AIR SC SUPP 155], [2011 JT SC 4 90], [2011 AWC SC 3 3126], [2011 UJ 2 1342], [2011 SCC CIV 3 581], [2011 KERLT 2 176], [2011 CGLRW 2 13], [2011 CUTLT 112 469], [2011 GUJ LH 1 757], [2011 ALR 86 450], [2011 RLW SC 3 2547], [2012 CCC SC 4 279]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138849/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aef4e4b014971141545b
The current status of this case is as follows:
The earlier Judgment contradicted by this one is Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors here.
Supreme Court has settled the following question of law:
the question of inheritance of co-parcenery property by the illegitimate children, who were born out of the live-in-relationship, could not arise.
Citations: [2010 AIR SCC 2685], [2010 AIR SCC 0 3503], [2010 CTC 3 654], [2010 JT 5 534], [2010 RCR CIVIL 3 252], [2010 SCCC 11 483], [2010 AD 6 478], [2010 SCC 0 515], [2010 SCCJ 5 442], [2010 ALT 5 4], [2010 LW 4 791], [2010 MLJ 7 953], [2010 SLT 4 419], [2010 AIOL 333], [2010 SCALE 6 53], [2010 SUPREME 4 433], [2010 SCCC CIV 4 498], [2010 AIC 91 54], [2010 CALLJ 2 176], [2010 ALR 81 230]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1513913/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aee7e4b0149711415176
This is contradicted (but NOT overruled) in Revanasiddappa And Another v. Mallikarjun And Others here.
Supreme Court held that without giving fair opportunity to the appellant, Disciplinary Committee could not have arrived at the conclusion of guilty.
Citations: [(2017) 4 SCC 713]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/190018442/ or https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2017/06/01/2017-scc-vol-4-may-21-2017-part-4/
Disclaimer:
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
I have no control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in it’s entirety, not I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.
Supreme Court held that, without eligibility for the post of District Judge, petitioners (who are subordinate judiciary) cannot claim stake for the post/continue in the post reserved for Advocates (25%) and hence they have to be reverted to their earlier posts.
From Para 48,
48. In the case of Dheeraj Mor and others cases, time to time interim orders have been passed by this Court, and incumbents in judicial service were permitted to appear in the examination. Though later on, this Court vacated the said interim orders, by that time certain appointments had been made in some of the States and in some of the States results have been withheld by the High Court owing to complication which has arisen due to participation of the ineligible in-service candidates as against the post reserved for the practising advocates. In the cases where such in-service incumbents have been appointed by way of direct recruitment from bar as we find no merit in the petitions and due to dismissal of the writ petitions filed by the judicial officers, as sequel no fruits can be ripened on the basis of selection without eligibility, they cannot continue as District Judges. They have to be reverted to their original post. In case their right in channel for promotion had already been ripened, and their juniors have been promoted, the High Court has to consider their promotion in accordance with prevailing rules. However, they cannot claim any right on the basis of such an appointment obtained under interim order, which was subject to the outcome of the writ petition and they have to be reverted.
Citations: [2020 SCC OnLine SC 213]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10432983/ or
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e52c0a93321bc1e173f86fc or
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/dheeraj-mor-versus-hon%E2%80%99ble-high-court-of-delhi or
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/practising-advocates-experience-gained-at-bar-injects-judicial-branch-with-fresh-perspectives-sc-152952 or
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/02/19/members-of-subordinate-judiciary-cant-claim-direct-recruitment-to-the-district-judge-post-under-quota-meant-for-practicing-advocates/ or
https://www.barandbench.com/news/breaking-judicial-officers-cant-be-considered-for-direct-recruitment-as-district-judges-under-quota-for-bar-sc
Supreme Court said that, acquittal from a false criminal case…
From Para 15,
15. It cannot be in doubt that in an appropriate case the unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand or such other allegation has been made and the husband and his family members are exposed to criminal litigation and ultimately if it is found that such allegation is unwarranted and without basis and if that act of the wife itself forms the basis for the husband to allege that mental cruelty has been inflicted on him, certainly, in such circumstance if a petition for dissolution of marriage is filed on that ground and evidence is tendered before the original court to allege mental cruelty it could well be appreciated for the purpose of dissolving the marriage on that ground.
Citations: [
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39962638/
Index of Divorce Judgments here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 1707 access attempts in the last 7 days.
