Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016

Posted on July 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Legal point explained: Court (Civil and Criminal) can allow amendments to the complaint/petition, before cognizance of same is taken by Court, either to a curable infirmity or the same cannot be corrected by a formal amendment or if there is likelihood of prejudice to the other side, then the Court shall not allow such amendment in the complaint

This is a judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court where in the issue that arises is whether a court dealing with the petition/complaint filed under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the DV Act’) has power to allow amendment to the petition/complaint originally filed.

Original reliefs requested in DV Case

“a) to provide protection to the life and limb of the complainant in the hands of the respondents;
b) to grant monthly maintenance of Rs. 5,000/- to the complainant and her children each towards her maintenance, medicines etc. and her children education and maintenance;
c) to grant such other relief or reliefs if the Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

These are the dole outs the begging knife requested Court to allow in this instant amendment petition

a) To provide protection to life and limb of the complainant in the hands of the respondent.
b) To grant monthly maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant and her 2nd child to their maintenance instead of Rs.5000/-
c) Direct the respondent to return the Sridhana amount of Rs.3,00,000/- and 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and other sari samanas and marriage batuvu presented to the respondent worth about 2 sovereigns wrist watch, 7 sovereign gold chain presented by the complainant and her parents.
d) Direct the respondent to pay the compensation of Rs.15 lakhs to the complaint for subjecting the compliant to physical and mental harassments besides including acts of Domestic Violence.
e) Direct the respondent to return the sari samans and other goods like worth more than Rs.10,00,000/- as per the list annexed herewith.
f) Direct the respondent to pay the cost of, litigation to the tune of Rs.25,000/- so far spent by the complainant persuing her litigation.
g) Direct the 1st respondent to provide separate residence by taking rent portion with monthly rent of Rs.10,000/-
h) Directing the respondent to return the original study certificates, medical certificates, deposits certificates and receipts etc. in the prayer portion paragraphs the following amendment by deleting the prayer original para
b) to grant monthly maintenance of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant and her children each towards her maintenance, medicines etc. and her children education and maintenance.”

Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016

Citations: [2016 SCC ONLINE SC 531]

Krishna Veni Nagam Vs Harish Nagam on 9 March, 2017

Posted on July 13, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In just judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court held that

in matrimonial or custody matters or in proceedings between parties to a marriage or arising out of disputes between parties to a marriage, wherever the defendants/respondents are located outside the jurisdiction of the court, the court where proceedings are instituted, may examine whether it is in the interest of justice to incorporate any safeguards for ensuring that summoning of defendant/respondent does not result in denial of justice. Order incorporating such safeguards may be sent along with the summons.
The safeguards can be:-
i) Availability of video conferencing facility.
ii) Availability of legal aid service.
iii) Deposit of cost for travel, lodging and boarding in terms of Order XXV CPC.
iv) E-mail address/phone number,

Krishna Veni Nagam Vs. Harish Nagam on 9 March, 2017

Citations : [2017 SCC 4 150], [2017 SCC ONLINE SC 236], [2017 AIR SC 1345], [2017 CTC 2 457], [2017 CDR SC 2 202], [2017 AJR 2 462], [2017 ALR 122 905], [2017 ALT 5 4], [2017 ALD 3 151], [2017 BOMCR 3 62], [2017 CLT 123 1054], [2017 DMCSC 2 173], [2017 GLT 2 29], [2017 JKJ SC 2 35], [2017 KHC 2 380], [2017 KLJ 2 549], [2017 KLT 2 593], [2017 LW 3 721], [2017 MPLJ 3 344], [2017 MHLJ 4 764], [2017 OLR 1 1033], [2017 RCR CIVIL 2 358], [2017 SCALE 3 471], [2017 SCJ 6 392], [2017 WBLR SC 3 622], [2017 WLN SC 2 26], [2017 SCC CIV 2 394]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/43287493/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58ca392a2713e10674449271

This judgment is overruled in Santhini Vs Vijaya Venketesh here.

R.D. Saxena Vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000

Posted on June 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on two aspects

(a) Has the advocate a lien for his fees on the litigation papers entrusted to him by his client?

(b) Does the client has freedom to choose and engage a advocate and change the advocate?

Thus, even after providing a right for an advocate to deduct the fees out of any money of the client remaining in his hand at the termination of the proceeding for which the advocate was engaged, it is important to notice that no lien is provided on the litigation files kept with him. In the conditions prevailing in India with lots of illiterate people among the litigant public it may not be advisable also to permit the counsel to retain the case bundle for the fees claimed by him. Any such lien if permitted would become susceptible to great abuses and exploitation.

… and more…

A litigant must have the freedom to change his advocate when he feels that the advocate engaged by him is not capable of espousing his cause efficiently or that his conduct is prejudicial to the interest involved in the lis, or for any other reason. For whatever reason, if a client does not want to continue the engagement of a particular advocate it would be a professional requirement consistent with the dignity of the profession that he should return the brief to the client. It is time to hold that such obligation is not only a legal duty but a moral imperative.
In criminal cases, every person accused of an offence has the right to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice which is now made a fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The said right is absolute in itself and it does not depend on other laws. In this context reference can be made to the decision of this Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Shobharam and ors. (AIR 1966 SC 1910). The words of his choice in Article 22(1) indicate that the right of the accused to change an advocate whom he once engaged in the same case, cannot be whittled down by that advocate by withholding the case bundle on the premise that he has to get the fees for the services already rendered to the client.
If a party terminates the engagement of an advocate before the culmination of the proceedings that party must have the entire file with him to engage another advocate.

R.D. Saxena Vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000

Citations : [2000 AIR SC 3049], [2001 ALLMR CRI SC 375], [2000 ALT SC 5 1], [2001 BLJR 1 174], [2000 CTC 3 757], [2001 GLH 3 624], [2000 JT SC 9 432], [2000 KLT SC 3 438], [2001 LW 1 284], [2001 MHLJ SC 1 23], [2000 MPLJ SC 613], [2000 PLJR 4 161], [2000 RD 91 692], [2000 SCALE 6 42], [2000 SCC 7 264], [2000 SUPP SCR 2 598], [2001 UJ 1 27], [2000 UPLBEC 3 2404], [2000 AIR SC 2912], [2000 CTR 163 32]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/151656/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad8de4b0149711411a9d

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma

http://www.briefcased.in/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma/

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/r-d-saxena-vs-balram-prasad-sharma-22160

Karnataka High Court Judgments:

NOC not required

Karnataka Power Distribution Vs M RajaShekar on 2 Dec 2016

NOC required:

Bhagya Vs Jayalakshmi on 13 Feb 2019

Other Judgements on this subject here.

Goa Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs R.K. Chawla on 4 July, 2011

Posted on June 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Apex Court in this judgment, had rejected the application of a Deputy Manager of a Company to appear and argue on behalf of the petitioner-Company.

A natural person can, of course, appear in person and argue his own case personally but he cannot give a power of attorney to anyone other than a person who is enrolled as an advocate to appear on his behalf. To hold otherwise would be to defeat the provisions of the Advocates Act.

Who can be Party in Person?

Section 32 of the Act, however, vests discretion in the court, authority or person to permit any person who is not enrolled as an advocate to appear before the court and argue a particular case. Section 32 of the Act is not the right of a person (other than an enrolled advocate) to appear and argue before the court but it is the discretion conferred by the Act on the court to permit any one to appear in a particular case even though he is not enrolled as an advocate.

… and more…

We make it clear that as regards artificial persons like a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, or a registered co-operative society, or a trust, neither the Director of the Company nor member of the Managing Committee or office bearer of the registered society or a trustee has a right to appear and argue on behalf of that entity, since that entity is distinct from its shareholders or office bearers or directors. However, it is the discretion of the court under Section 32 of the Act to permit such person to appear on behalf of that entity.

From Para 7,

7. There is a distinction between the right to appear on behalf of someone, which is only given to enrolled lawyers, and the discretion in the court to permit a non-lawyer to appear before it. Under Sections 29 and 33 of the Act only those persons have a right to appear and argue before the court who are enrolled as an advocate while under Section 32 of the Act, a power is vested in the court to permit, in a particular case, a person other than an advocate to appear before it and argue the case. A power-of-attorney holder cannot, unless he is an enrolled lawyer, appear in court on behalf of anyone, unless, permitted by the court under Section 32 of the Act, though of course he may sign sale deeds, agreements, etc. and do other acts on behalf of someone else, unless prohibited by law.

Goa Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs R.K. Chawla on 4 July, 2011

Citations : [2011 ACR SC 2 2269], [2011 JKJ SC 3 56], [2011 JT SC 7 559], [2011 KLT SC 3 498], [2011 RCR CIVIL 4 252], [2011 SCALE 7 413], [2011 SCC 15 449], [2011 SCR 7 846], [2014 SCC CIV 2 617], [2011 MWN CR 3 290], [2011 AIOL 469], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 4 257], [2011 KLT 3 498], [2011 JT 7 559]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/170747848/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af02e4b0149711415575

Deb Narayan Halder Vs Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003

Posted on June 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Apex Court has in this judgment denied maintenance to Knife who is errant and left matrimonial home on her own without any justifiable reasons.

Justice BP SINGH held that,

“the respondent had left her matrimonial home on her own and that she was not compelled by the appellant to leave her matrimonial home, nor had he threatened the respondent with dire consequences if she did not leave his house. There was no ground for the respondent to apprehend that if she lived with the appellant her life would be in danger and that she will be subjected to torture or cruelty. In sum and substance she had no justifiable reason to desert the appellant. The fact that the application for grant of maintenance was filed within four days of her leaving her matrimonial home without any effort for reconciliation, was also significant. The learned Magistrate therefore held that the respondent having left her matrimonial home without any justifiable ground was not entitled to the grant of maintenance.”

Deb Narayan Halder Vs Smt. Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003

Citations: [AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 3174], [2003 AIR SCW 4522], [2004 SCC(CRI) 164], [2003 (5) SLT 170], [(2003) 3 BANKCAS 86], [2003 (6) SCALE 742], [(2003) 7 JT 379 (SC)], [2003 (11) SCC 303], [2003 CRIAPPR(SC) 513], [2003 (9) SRJ 130], [(2003) 11 ALLINDCAS 129 (SC)], [(2004) 2 MARRILJ 488], [(2004) 1 DMC 25], [(2004) 1 BOMCR(CRI) 949], [(2003) 4 ALLCRILR 139], [(2003) 6 SUPREME 415], [(2004) 1 RAJ CRI C 201], [(2004) SC CR R 352], [(2004) 1 RAJ LW 14], [(2003) 2 RAJ LR 492], [2004 CHANDLR(CIV&CRI) 449], [(2003) 10 INDLD 580], [(2003) 4 CRIMES 74], [(2003) 2 UC 1388], [(2003) 2 HINDULR 523], [(2003) 26 OCR 606], [(2003) 4 RECCRIR 189], [(2003) 3 CURCRIR 242], [(2003) 3 ALLCRIR 2849], [(2003) 6 SCALE 742], [(2003) 47 ALLCRIC 897], [(2003) 3 BLJ 531], [2003 (2) ALD(CRL) 765], [(2003) 3 WLC (RAJ) 593]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1017614/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609adcce4b01497114124ee

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/deb-narayan-halder-vs-smt-anushree-halder

Index of Maintenance Judgments are here.

Shakson Belthissor Vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009

Posted on June 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Simple case on allegations not meeting the criterion on IPC 498A is confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in this 482 quash judgment.

When we examine the facts of the present case particularly the FIR and the charge sheet we find that there is no such allegation either in the FIR or in the charge sheet making out a prima facie case as narrated under explanation(a). There is no allegation that there is any such conduct on the part of the appellant which could be said to be amounting to cruelty of such a nature as is likely to cause the Respondent No. 2 to commit suicide or to cause any injury to her life. The ingredient to constitute an offence under explanation (a) of Section 498A IPC are not at all mentioned either in FIR or in charge sheet and in absence thereof, no case is made out. Therefore, explanation (a) as found in Section 498A IPC is clearly not attracted in the present case.
We, therefore, now proceed to examine as to whether the case would fall under explanation (b) of Section 498A of IPC constituting cruelty of the nature as mentioned in explanation (b). In order to constitute cruelty under the said provision there has to be harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or a case is to be made out to the effect that there is a failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand. When the allegation made in the FIR and charge sheet is examined in the present case in the light of the aforesaid provision, we find that no prima facie case even under the aforesaid provision is made out to attract a case of cruelty.

Shakson Belthissor Vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009

Citations : [2010 SCC CRI 1 1412], [2009 AIOL 863], [2009 SCC 14 466], [2009 SUPREME 5 281], [2009 ANJ SC SUPP 2 55], [2009 JT 8 617], [2009 SCR 9 1187], [2009 SCALE 9 70], [2009 AIC SC 80 192], [2009 ECRN SC 3 818]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/437533/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aec9e4b0149711414c59

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Union of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr on 6 Nov 1978

Posted on June 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Awesome judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court whereby a person is discharged under section 227 Cr.P.C. from the offence under Prevention of Corruption Act.

From Para 3

The short point which arises for determination in this case is the scope and ambit of an order of discharge to be passed by a Special Judge under section 227 of the Code. The appeal does not raise any new question of law and there have been several authorities of the High Courts as also of this Court on the various aspects and grounds on which an accused person can be discharged, but as section 227 of the Code is a new section and at the time when the application for special leave was filed, there was no direct decision of this Court on the interpretation of section 227 of the Code, the matter was thought fit to be given due consideration by this Court.

From Para 5,

Thus, it would appear that the legislature while dispensing with the procedure for commitment enquiry under the Code of 1898 has conferred a dual responsibility on the Trial Judge who has first to examine the case on the basis of the statement of witnesses recorded by the police and the documents filed with a view to find out whether a prima facie case for trial has been made out and then if such a case is made out to proceed to try the same. In our view the legislature has adopted this course in order to avoid frivolous prosecutions and prevent the accused from being tried of an offence on materials which do not furnish a reasonable probability of conviction.

From Para 7,

At the stage of section 227, the Judge has merely to sift the evidence in order to find out whether or not there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. The sufficiency of ground would take within its fold the nature of the evidence recorded by the police or the documents produced before the court which ex facie disclose that there are suspicious circumstances against the accused so as to frame a charge against him.

Few terms used by Hon’ble Justices of Apex Court in earlier judgments are

… Magistrate … is not to act as a mere Post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution
Magistrate holding an enquiry is not intended to act merely as a recording machine.

Following principles have emerged

(1) That the Judge while considering the question of framing the charges under section 227 of the Code has the undoubted power to sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether or not a prima facie case against the accused has been made out:
(2) Where the materials placed before the Court disclose grave suspicion against the accused which has not been properly explained the Court will be, fully justified in framing a charge and proceeding with the trial.
(3) The test to determine a prima facie case would naturally depend upon the facts of each case and it is difficult to lay down a rule of universal application. By and large however if two views are equally possible and the Judge is satisfied that the evidence produced before him while giving rise to some suspicion but not grave suspicion against the accused, he will be fully within his right to discharge the accused.
(4) That in exercising his jurisdiction under section 227 of the Code the Judge which under the present Code is a senior and experienced Judge cannot act merely as a Post office or a mouth-piece of the prosecution, but has to consider the broad probabilities of the case, 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 does not mean that the Judge should make a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if he was conducting a trial.

Union Of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal & Anr on 6 November, 1978

The following is from SCI’s SCR repository.

Union of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr on 6 Nov 1978 (SCR)

Citations: [1979 SCR 2 229], [1979 AIR SC 366], [1979 MLJ CRI 361], [1979 SCC 3 4], [1979 CRILJ 154], [1979 SCC CRI 609]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1360078/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609abcce4b014971140d5de

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

Dalip Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The Supreme Court bench has delivered this landmark judgment calling out the cherished two basic values of life i.e., `Satya’ (truth) and `Ahimsa’ (non-violence) in Indian Society and exclaimed that,

“In last 40 years, a new creed of litigants has cropped up. Those who belong to this creed do not have any respect for truth. They shamelessly resort to falsehood and unethical means for achieving their goals. In order to meet the challenge posed by this new creed of litigants, the courts have, from time to time, evolved new rules and it is now well established that a litigant, who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.“

Dalip Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/198000498/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aed8e4b0149711414dd7

Citations: [2010 SCC CRI 1 324], [2010 SCC 2 114], [2009 SCALE 14 473], [2010 AIC 85 13], [2010 AIR SC SUPP 116], [2010 AIR SC 0 50], [2010 SCJ 1 863], [2009 JT 15 201], [2009 SLT 9 167], [2009 AIOL 1294], [2009 SUPREME 8 485], [2010 ALL LJ 1 536], [2010 MADLJ 2 483], [2010 AIR SCW 50]

Index of perjury case laws here.

V.Bhagat Vs D.Bhagat on 19 November, 1993

Posted on May 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another landmark judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court clearly defining the meaning of Mental Cruelty with respect to Divorce petition.

V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993

Citations : [1994 UJ SC 1 70], [1994 AIR SC 710], [1993 SCALE 4 488], [1994 SCC 1 337], [1994 BLJR 1 1], [1994 PUNJ LR 1 603], [1994 GLH 1 186], [1994 AN LT SC 1 14], [1994 BOMLR 96 360], [1994 ALT SC 1 14], [1994 ALR 23 77], [1994 LW 1 27], [1994 CIVILCC 558], [1993 JT SC 6 428], [1993 SUPP SCR 3 796], [1993 SUPPSCR 3 796], [1994 UJ 1 70], [1994 AIR 710]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1848484/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ac91e4b014971140f2cb#20

The Index is here.

Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 2 July 2014

Posted on May 14, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark judgment from Supreme Court asserting that ‘No automatic arrest’ in matrimonial cases. See here how this judgement has impacted the Bail-Jail industry.

“Our endeavour in this judgment is to ensure that police officers do not arrest accused unnecessarily and Magistrate do not authorise detention casually and mechanically. In order to ensure what we have observed above, we give the following direction:

(1) All the State Governments to instruct its police officers not to automatically arrest when a case under Section 498-A of the IPC is registered but to satisfy themselves about the necessity for arrest under the parameters laid down above flowing from Section 41, Cr.PC;
(2) All police officers be provided with a check list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii);
(3) The police officer shall forward the check list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention;
(4) The Magistrate while authorising detention of the accused shall peruse the report furnished by the police officer in terms aforesaid and only after recording its satisfaction, the Magistrate will authorise detention;
(5) The decision not to arrest an accused, be forwarded to the Magistrate within two weeks from the date of the institution of the case with a copy to the Magistrate which may be extended by the Superintendent of police of the district for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
(6) Notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.PC be served on the accused within two weeks from the date of institution of the case, which may be extended by the Superintendent of Police of the District for the reasons to be recorded in writing;
(7) Failure to comply with the directions aforesaid shall apart from rendering the police officers concerned liable for departmental action, they shall also be liable to be punished for contempt of court to be instituted before High Court having territorial jurisdiction;
(8) Authorising detention without recording reasons as aforesaid by the judicial Magistrate concerned shall be liable for departmental action by the appropriate High Court.

Most important.

We hasten to add that the directions aforesaid shall not only apply to the cases under Section 498-A of the I.P.C. or Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, the case in hand, but also such cases where offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term which may be less than seven years or which may
extend to seven years; whether with or without fine.

Arnesh Kumar vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 2 July, 2014

Citations: [2014 DLT 210 599], [2014 GLR 2 1848], [2014 CRIMES SC 3 40], [2014 OLR SC 2 562], [2014 KARLJ SC 4 177], [2014 AD SC 7 697], [2014 KCCR 3 1977], [2014 JT 7 527], [2014 AIOL 411], [2014 MPHT SC 4 81], [2014 RLW SC 3 2171], [2014 CCR SC 3 144], [2014 WLN SC 3 28], [2014 AIC 140 118], [2014 MPJR SC 4 55], [2014 JLJR SC 3 313], [2015 LW CRL 1 318], [2014 ALT CRI 2 457], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 3 527], [2014 KHC 3 69], [2014 CRIMES SC 3 206], [2014 GLT SC 3 102], [2014 SLT 5 582], [2014 SCC 8 273], [2014 MLJ CRL SC 3 353], [2014 CRLJ SC 3707], [2014 AIR SCW 3930], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 532], [2014 ACR SC 3 2670], [2014 SCJ 6 219], [2014 CRILJ 3707], [2014 GUJLR 2 1848], [2014 JT 9 55], [2014 SUPREME 5 324], [2014 DMC SC 2 546], [2014 GUJ LH 2 547], [2014 KERLT 3 143], [2014 ILR 5507], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 3 362], [2014 SCALE 8 250], [2014 PLJR 3 314], [2014 AIR SC 2756], [2014 JCC SC 3 1529], [2014 KLJ 3 330], [2014 SCC CRI 3 449], [2014 SCSUPPL CHN 4 73], [2014 GLH 2 547], [2014 ALLCC 86 568], [2014 ILR KER 3 165]

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision

Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016

Krishna Veni Nagam Vs Harish Nagam on 9 March, 2017

R.D. Saxena Vs Balram Prasad Sharma on 22 August, 2000

Goa Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs R.K. Chawla on 4 July, 2011

Deb Narayan Halder Vs Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003

Shakson Belthissor Vs State Of Kerala & Anr on 6 July, 2009

Union of India Vs Prafulla Kumar Samal and Anr on 6 Nov 1978

Dalip Singh Vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 3 December, 2009

V.Bhagat Vs D.Bhagat on 19 November, 1993

Arnesh Kumar Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 2 July 2014