Kehar Singh and Anr Vs Union of India and Anr on 16 December 1988

Posted on April 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the Writ Petition filed by one Kehar Singh who was accused and convicted for the consipracy and murder of Indira Gandhi on the following questions.

1. Whether there is justification for the view that when exercising his powers under Art. 72 the President is precluded from entering into the merits of a case decided finally by this Court.
2. To what areas does the power to scrutinise extend?
3. Whether judicial review extends to an examination of the order passed by the President under Art. 72 of the Constitution.
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an oral hearing from the President on his petition invoking the powers under Article 72.

Supreme Courts answers as,

We are of the view that it is open to the President in the exercise of the power vested in him by Art. 72 of the Constitution to scrutinise the evidence on the record of the criminal case and come to a different conclusion from that recorded by the court in regard to the guilt of, and sentence imposed on, the accused. In doing so, the President does not amend or modify or supersede the judicial record. The judicial record remains intact, and undisturbed. The president acts in a wholly different plane from that in which the Court acted. He acts under a constitutional power, the nature of which is entirely different from the judicial power and cannot be regarded as an extension of it. And this is so, notwithstanding that the practical effect of the Presidential act is to remove the stigma of guilt from the accused or to remit the sentence imposed on him.

and…

It is apparent that the power under Art. 72 entitles the President to examine the record of evidence of the criminal case and to determine for himself whether the case is one deserving the grant of the relief falling within that power. We are of opinion that the President is entitled to go into the merits of the case notwithstanding that it has been judicially concluded by the consideration given to it by this Court.

Kehar Singh and Anr Vs Union of India and Anr on 16 December 1988

Citations: [1988 SUPP SCR 3 1102], [1989 SCC 1 204], [1989 SCALE 1 242], [1988 SCR SUPL 3 1102], [1989 MPJR SC 10], [1989 CRLJ SC 941], [1989 CRILJ 941], [1988 SCALE 2 1565], [1988 SCR SUPP 3 1102], [1989 AIR SC 653], [1989 CRIMES SC 1 238], [1989 PLJR 23], [1989 SCC CRI 86], [1988 JT 4 693]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1152284/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aac9e4b014971140afa4

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.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Linde India Ltd on 13 April 2020

Posted on April 13, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that ‘Medical Oxygen IP‟ and „Nitrous Oxide IP‟ are taxable under Entry 88 of Schedule IV of the Andhra Pradesh Value Added Tax Act 20051 and the rate of tax to be levied on them – 4%/5%2 under Entry 88. Govt of AP lost the appeal.

State of Andhra Pradesh Vs Linde India Ltd on 13 April 2020

Citations: [

Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Posted on April 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice A.K.Sikri in a 2-judge bench had held that, for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman (who is not a legally wedded wife), is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.

From Para 25,

25. Thus, while interpreting a statute the court may not only take into consideration the purpose for which the statute was enacted, but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. It is this mischief rule, first propounded in Heydon’s Case[11] which became the historical source of purposive interpretation. The court would also invoke the legal maxim construction ut res magis valeat guam pereat, in such cases i.e. where alternative constructions are possible the Court must give effect to that which will be responsible for the smooth working of the system for which the statute has been enacted rather than one which will put a road block in its way. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation should be avoided. We should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. If this interpretation is not accepted, it would amount to giving a premium to the husband for defrauding the wife. Therefore, at least for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.

Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Citations: [2014 SCJ 2 779], [2014 CRILJ 1076], [2014 SCC 1 188], [2013 SCALE 12 681], [2014 CRLJ SC 1076], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 764], [2013 CTC 6 86], [2014 AIR SC 256], [2014 NCC 1 238], [2013 RLW SC 4 3670], [2013 AIOL 3407], [2013 AD SC 11 9], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 4 830], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 946], [2014 JLJR SC 1 78], [2014 LW CRL 1 646], [2014 SCC CIV 1 51], [2013 JCC SC 4 2765], [2014 LW 2 936], [2013 ACR 3 3010], [2014 MPHT 2 499], [2014 GLH 1 273], [2013 KERLT 4 367], [2013 ALR 101 704], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 616], [2013 SLT 9 543], [2013 DMC 3 518], [2014 ECRN 1 241], [2014 AIR SC 869], [2013 JT 13 570], [2013 AIC 132 108]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15901386/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af37e4b0149711415daf

Earlier Chanmuniya judgment is here.

Challa Sivakumar and Two Ors Vs Challa Anita and Two Ors on 24 October 2018

Posted on April 8, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, it was held that, DVC is maintainble even after Divorce.

Challa Sivakumar and Two Ors Vs Challa Anita and Two Ors on 24 October 2018

Citations: [

M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs CBI Bengaluru on 7 January 2020

Posted on April 7, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice K.M.Joesph from a 2-judge bench, held the following principles while deciding a discharge petition file u/s 227 CrPC. Also Governing principles regarding permissibility of defence of accused or documents produced by him, summarized.

i. If two views are possible and one of them gives rise to suspicion only as distinguished from grave suspicion, the Trial Judge would be empowered to discharge the accused.
ii. The Trial Judge is not a mere Post Office to frame the charge at the instance of the prosecution.
iii. The Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding. Evidence would consist of the statements recorded by the Police or the documents produced before the Court.
iv. If the evidence, which the Prosecutor proposes to adduce to prove the guilt of the accused, even if fully accepted before it is challenged in cross-examination or rebutted by the defence evidence, if any, “cannot show that the accused committed offence, then, there will be no sufficient ground for proceeding with the trial”.
v. It is open to the accused to explain away the materials giving rise to the grave suspicion.
vi. The court has to consider the broad probabilities, the total effect of the evidence and the documents produced before the court, any basic infirmities appearing in the case and so on. This, however, would not entitle the court to make a roving inquiry into the pros and cons.
vii. At the time of framing of the charges, the probative value of the material on record cannot be gone into, and the material brought on record by the prosecution, has to be accepted as true.
viii. There must exist some materials for entertaining the strong suspicion which can form the basis for drawing up a charge and refusing to discharge the accused.

M.E. Shivalingamurthy Vs CBI Bengaluru on 7 January 2020

Citations: [(2020) 2 SCC 768]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151468802/ or

Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.

IN RE Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during nCOVID-19 Pandemic on 06 April 2020

Posted on April 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the Order of Supreme Court where in it has frame some guidelines for it to function through Video Conferencing during nCovid-19 pandemic and even after the lockdown which was supposed to end on 14 April 2020 but got extended upto 3 May 2020.

IN RE Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during nCOVID 19 Pandemic-Order 06 April 2020

Here is the Record of Proceedings (ROP) for 06 April 2020

IN RE Guidelines for Court Functioning through Video Conferencing during nCOVID 19 Pandemic-ROP 06 April 2020

AP High Court has also taken up the issue of COVID-19 as a Writ Petition here.

Citations: [

Union of India Vs R Thiyagarajan on 3 April 2020

Posted on April 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This Judgment by Justice Deepak Gupta from a 2-judge bench held in Para 18 that,

18. We also are of the view that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in matters like this. The High Court exercise its jurisdiction only over State(s) of which it is the High Court. It has no jurisdiction for the rest of the country. Matters like the present may be pending in various parts of the country. In the present case, matter had been decided by the Delhi High Court but some other High Court may or may not have taken different view. The High Court of Madras could not have passed such order. It has virtually usurped the jurisdiction of other High Courts in the country. It is true that sometimes this Court has ordered that all similarly situated employees may be granted similar relief but the High Court does not have the benefit of exercising the power under Article 142 of the Constitution. In any event, this Court exercises jurisdiction over the entire country whereas the jurisdiction of the High Court is limited to the territorial jurisdiction of the State(s) of which it is the High Court. The High Court may be justified in passing such an order when it only affects the employees of the State falling within its jurisdiction but, in our opinion, it could not have passed such an order in the case of employees where pan India repercussions would be involved.

This effectively means that, to challenge a Central Act such as Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 which has ramifications to entire country, one can not invoke the Writ jurisdiction of a High Court. This implies that, one has to go to Supreme Court only. This is quite contrary to the obiter dicta from Kusum Ingots judgement here given by a 3-judge bench.

Union of India Vs R Thiyagarajan on 3 April 2020

Citations: [

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/95720998/ or

Raj Talreja Vs Kavita Talreja on 24 April 2017

Posted on March 25, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court had that filing false complaints caused mental cruelty and thereby gives opportunity to seek divorce on the ground of Cruelty.

“11. Cruelty can never be defined with exactitude. What is cruelty will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In the present case, from the facts narrated above, it is apparent that the wife made reckless, defamatory and false accusations against her husband, his family members and
colleagues, which would definitely have the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of his peers. Mere filing of complaints is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file the complaints. Merely because no action is taken on the complaint or after trial the accused is acquitted may not be a ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty within the meaning of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short “the Act”). However, if it is
found that the allegations are patently false, then there can be no manner of doubt that the said conduct of a spouse levelling false accusations against the other spouse would be an act of cruelty.”

Raj Talreja Vs Kavita Talreja on 24 April 2017

Citations: [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 462], [MANU/SC/0493/2017], [2017 AIR SC 2138], [2017 ALR 123 835], [2017 ALD 4 189], [2017 CHN SC 3 77], [2017 CTC 4 208], [2017 CLT 124 401], [2017 DMCSC 2 317], [2017 JLJ 3 367], [2017 JLJR 2 470], [2017 MLJ 4 190], [2017 PLJR 2 475], [2017 RCR CIVIL 2 1044], [2017 SCALE 5 413], [2017 SCJ 5 418]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/139144445/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58fe28e753bee70a8573e00c

Supreme Court mandates use of A4 sheets With Double-Sided Printing for all usages from 01 April 2020

Posted on March 25, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The Supreme Court has finally approved the use of A4 size papers for filing documents, with printing on both the sides. The news is here and the circular is below.