Few other Orders passed by the Supreme Court in the Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors case (available here)are listed below for reference.
This is decision from Apex Court of India which held that,
“It bars the use of any statement made before a police officer in the course of an investigation under Chanter XII, whether recorded in a police diary or otherwise, but by the express terms of the Section this bar is applicable only where such statement is sought to be used at any inquiry or trial in respect of any offence under investigation at the time when such statement was made’. If the statement made before a police officer in the course of an investigation under chapter XII is sought to be used in any proceeding other than an inquiry or trial or even at an inquiry of trial but in respect of an offence other than that which was under investigation at the time when such statement was made, the bar or Section 162 would not be attracted.“
Citations: [1981 AIR 1068], [1981 SCR (3) 145], [1981 SCC (2) 493], [1981 SCALE (1)531]
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/705101/
Other orders made in this case are here.
This is judgment from Apex Court which is hearing the contention, No Maintenance to Willfully Deserting Knife. Let’s follow the case.
Here is the Allahabad High Court order
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
In this landmark judgment (per Obiter Dicta), Apex Court has held that,
A parliamentary legislation when it receives the assent of the President of India and is published in the Official Gazette, unless specifically excluded, will apply to the entire territory of India. If passing of a legislation gives rise to a cause of action, a writ petition questioning the constitutionality thereof can be filed in any High Court of the country. It is not so done because a cause of action will arise only when the provisions of the Act or some of them which were implemented shall give rise to civil or evil consequences to the petitioner. A writ court, it is well settled, would not determine a constitutional question in a vacuum.
The court must have the requisite territorial jurisdiction. An order passed on writ petition questioning the constitutionality of a Parliamentary Act whether interim or final keeping in view the provisions contained in Clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will have effect throughout the territory of India subject of course to the applicability of the Act.
Citations: [2004 SCALE 5 304], [2004 AIR SC 2321], [2004 SCC 6 254], [2004 BOMCR SC SUPP 2 654], [2004 AIR SC 2766], [2004 SUPREME 3 757], [2004 JT SUPP 1 475], [2004 ALLMR SC 5 700], [2004 DLT 111 480], [2004 COMPCAS 120 672], [2004 ELT 168 3], [2004 AIC SC 19 730], [2004 BC 3 56], [2004 COMPLJ SC 3 1], [2004 CTC 3 365], [2004 DRJ 77 317], [2004 ECR SC 114 1013], [2005 ECR SC 118 151], [2004 ELT SC 186 3], [2004 JCR SC 3 92], [2004 JT SUPPL SC 1 475], [2004 PLR 138 626]
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1876565/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae06e4b0149711412bc2
See this, this, this and this Supreme Court Judgments. Many High Courts have relied on the above aspect of this Judgment here.
This is the case of a casanova Judge who danced to the tunes of a Lady Advocate and landed in Trashbin as a result. Haha
The Bombay High Court judgment below lays bare the kaands of the casanova and the consequences.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
This Transfer Petition at Supreme Court led to the directions to States and Union Territories to make registration of marriages compulsory in India. The following are the key Orders.
On 14 February 2006, Directions given to States and Union Territories to make registration of marriages compulsory in India
On 25 October 2007, further directions were issued.
“The directions given by the order dated 24.2.2006 have not been fully complied with. We, therefore, direct that the States and Union Territories who have not acted in line with the directions given on 14.2.2006 shall forthwith do it and in no case later than three months from today.“
On 9 July 2008, again Apex Court gave 4 months time to comply with directions.
“Let all the States and Union Territories who have not given specific details, file affidavits within four months from today.“
On 1 May 2019, Office Report was put up and the same is here.
On 1 May 2019, Transfer petition is disposed off.
The transfer petition has not been answered and the matrimonial suit in question has remained stayed since 15.4.2005. The fate of the said matrimonial suit as on date and the interest of the parties in pursuing the matter is not known to us, as none has appeared on behalf of the original contesting parties. The judicial exercise after 14.2.2006 has been to monitor implementation of the directions of the said date, as extracted above. The materials on record would indicate that most of the States barring a few have framed suitable legislations. In any event, in terms of the order dated 15.4.2005, such of the States that have not framed legislations, will be governed by the directions contained in the order dated 14.2.2006.
Taking into account the above facts, we are of the view that no worthwhile purpose will be served by keeping these proceedings pending before this Court. We accordingly close the said proceedings and vacate the interim order dated 15.4.2005, so far as the stay of Matrimonial Suit No. 104/2004 is concerned.
Citations: [2006 ALLMR SC 2 11], [2006 AIR BOMR 2 783], [2006 AIOL 84], [2006 SCR 2 220], [2006 AIR SC 1158], [2006 BOMCR SC 2 497], [2006 AIR SC 858], [2006 SCALE 2 333], [2006 ANJ SC 2 144], [2006 SUPREME 2 66], [2006 JT 2 378], [2006 SCC 2 578], [2006 CUTLT 101 639], [2006 DLT 127 282], [2006 KERLT 1 791]
Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae30e4b01497114131d8 or https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1037437/
In this Judgment from Supreme Court, it was held that education of knife is not a consideration to decide interim maintenance. What the fcuk?? Whatever happened to Nari_MyFoot_Shakti?
From Para 15,
An order for maintenance pendente lite or for costs of the proceedings is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim for the same has no independent income sufficient for her or his support or to meet the necessary expenses of the proceeding. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. Likewise, the financial position of the wife’s parents is also immaterial. The Court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance and whether the applicant has any independent income sufficient for her or his support. Maintenance is always dependent upon factual situation; the Court should, therefore, mould the claim for maintenance determining the quantum based on various factors brought before the Court.
Haha, the threats of SC Judge… LOLwa
In case the appellant-husband does not comply with the order, as above, including for payment of arrears, he would be visited with all consequences including action for contempt of Court.
Similar to M/S Pepsi Foods Ltd judgment here, here also Supreme Court held that where that are baseless and vague allegations, High Courts can invoke their inherent powers u/s 482 CrPC to quash appropriate proceedings.
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1770765/
Citation: JT 1998 (5) 452, (1998) 7 SCC 698
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court which held that, where appropriate High Courts should exercise its power available under Article 227 of Constitution of India to quash baseless proceedings.
The Supreme Court had held that,
“Summoning of an accused in a criminal case is a serious matter. Criminal law cannot be set into motion as a matter of course. It is not that the complainant has to bring only two witnesses to support his allegations in the complaint to have the criminal law set into motion. The order of the Magistrate summoning the accused must reflect that he has applied his mind to the facts of the case and the law applicable thereto. He has to examine the nature of allegations made in the complaint and the evidence both oral and documentary in support thereof and would that be sufficient for the complainant to succeed in bringing charge home to the accused. It is not that the Magistrate is a silent spectator at the time of recording of preliminary evidence before summoning the accused. Magistrate had to carefully scrutinize the evidence brought on record and may even himself put questions to the complainant and his witnesses to elicit answers to find out the truthfulness of the allegations or otherwise and then examine if any offence is prima facie committed by all or any of the accused.”
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/574884/
Citation: 1998 (5) SCC 749, AIR 1998 SC 128
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Here are the orders issued by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, in Rishabh Duggal v Bar Council of India case which challenges Clause 28 of Rules of Legal Education providing for the Age of Admission.
An adjournment granted in the earlier hearing date
Here is the Interim Order, which stayed the BCI notification limiting the Age of Law aspirants in India.
Article traverses all related case laws here
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Bad Behavior has blocked 2413 access attempts in the last 7 days.
