Issue of collecting parking fee from the vehicles in Multiplex Malls and other commercial complexes is resolved.
Citations: [
Other Source links:
Tag: Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to
Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam Vs State of Jharkhand on 27 April 2020
Jharkhand High Court (Single Bench) has quashed and set aside 3 Orders of Magistrate Court issued under Sections 73, 82 and 83 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, they being with out any application of mind, issued in mechanical manner and with out any reasons recorded as necessary by Code/Law.
From Para 3,
3. The main contention of the petitioners is that the Court below, in a most mechanical manner issued non-bailable warrant of arrest. In the similar
manner the process under section 82 of the Code and thereafter attachment order in terms of Section 83 of the Code have been issued. It is their contention that, even without receipt of the service report of bailable warrant of arrest, non-bailable warrant of arrest have been issued against the petitioners.
Similarly, without there being any service report of non-bailable warrant of arrest, process under Section 82 of the Code has been issued. Further, without any service of the process under Section 82 of the Code, attachment order in terms of Section 83 of the Code has been issued. It is also the case of the petitioners that the processes are being issued in utter violation of the respective provisions laid down in the Code, i.e. Sections 73, 82 & 83 thereof, thus, these orders need to be set aside.
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 or Government websites.
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.
Revanasiddappa and Anr Vs Mallikarjun and Ors on 31 March 2011
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.
Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors on 17 May 2010
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.
Dheeraj Mor Vs High Court of Delhi on 19 February 2020
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
Circus feats of the YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh
A curated list of mangled-up decisions of incumbent YCP Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and the consequences suffered by public thereof and how Hon’ble Courts and Tribunals of this Great Nation did their best to protect State of Andhra Pradesh and it’s people. For legal litigation against incumbent Chief Minister in his personal capacity, go here.
Disclaimer: These are many more which I may not be aware of or may not have details to capture on this page. If you want to share such information, please use the Contact me page.
1. Destruction of Prajaa Vedika
2. Review of Power Purchase Agreements
3. Reduction of Z+ category security cover for Opposition Leader N. Chandrababu Naidu
4. Reverse Tendering in Polavaram HydroPower Project Contract
5. Disclose Government Stand on Swiss Challenge
6. Failure in Transferring of Lands to Bundar Port
7. Give reasons for removal of Agricultural Market Yard Chairmen
8. Direction to APERC to finalize Power prices
9. Decision by Executive Council in contrary to Universities Act
10. What is action taken by Government when School uniforms and text books are sold for inflated prices?
11. What is the Government policy to allocate Government lands to Private individuals and Organizations?
12. Notices to Botsa and Buggana on the Committee regd Capital Amaravati
13. Not conducting Panchayat Elections even after High Court directions
Finalize reservations before Jan 7th 2PM and share with SEC
BC reservations reduced to 24% from 34%
14. Basis/norm for giving payment for Pasters, Imams and Mauzans
15. Cannot dissolve Temple Boards as per Government wish
16. Why payments to Solar and Tidal Power Generation companies are pending?
- High Court says, APSPDCL should immediately Pay the pending dues to Solar, Tidal Power Generation companies, as committed to them to be paid in 4 weeks here.
17. Liquor Prohibition
- Bars reduced from 840 to 530. Madya vimochana Prachara Committee. Not sure how much of public funds are grabbed under this guise. Fake brands. Exponential rates.
- Why no reduction in retail liquor business in AP in Prohibition is target? What is the reason for reducing bars? 04-12-2019
- Why advance notice not issued to Bar owners before reducing them?
- Stay on Old Bar licenses and Issue of New Licenses
18. YCP Colors to Panchayat Buildings
- Muppa Venkateswara Rao Vs State of AP on 10 March 2020 [WP(PIL) allowed by AP High Court]
- State of AP Vs Muppa Venkateswara Rao on 23 March 2020 [SLP dismissed by Supreme Court]
- G.O. Ms. No. 623 [Guidelines on Colour combination theme for painting of Gram Panchayat Buildings; Attempted Disguising Technique: Colours representing Various revolutions]
- Suryadevara Venkata Rao Vs State of AP on 05 May 2020 [High Court suspended the G.O. Ms. No.623 and it’s implementation]
- Final Order here. [G.O. Ms. No.623 is quashed]
- State of AP Vs Suryadevara Venkata Rao on 03 June 2020 [Supreme Court dumped the Civil Appeal against above High Court Judgment]
19. Mandatory English medium in School Education system
- High Court: Will recover funds spent on Printing Academic books, running of classes from responsible officers.
- Dr. Srinivas Guntupalli Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 15 April 2020 [G.O Issued by Govt of Andhra Pradesh is held to by lacking total application of mind]
- G.O. Ms. No.20 [Collect feedback from Parents of Children regd their preference for Medium of Instruction in all Government schools in the State – Dt 21 April 2020; Attempted Disguising Technique: Parents will choose English this time as their preferred medium of teaching for their children]
- Supreme Court
20. How can you appoint In-charge Chairman where is an incumbent Chariman for APPSC?
- No one interferes in the duties of APPSC Chairman Uday Bhaskar
21. Damodar Naidu has qualifications to become V.C. Dismissal of Petitions challenging his appointment
22. Suspension of Jasthi Krishna Kishore
23. First installment of Rs. 1845 Crores received under NREGS for 2019-20 from Central Government not deposited into Gram Panchayats. Deposit within 1 month.
24. Three Capital Cities for Andhra Pradesh
- Why impose section 144 CrPC on peacefully agitating farmers for Amaravati?
- Why violence was unleashed on women protesters and no women police to apprehend them?
- No movement of Government offices from Amaravati until the petitions about Capital city are pending. If moved, State Government and Department Officials will be liable for consequences and spent amount will be recovered from personal pockets.
- Submit all reports from GN Rao Committee and BCG.
- Andhra Pradesh to have 3 Capital cities (Kurnool-Judicial Capital, Visakhapatnam-Administrative/Executive Capital and Amaravathi-Legislative Capital)
- Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi challenged the Trifurcation of State in the guise of decentralized development/administration here.
- Insider Trading Allegations case
- Chekka Guru Murali Mohan and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 19 Jan 2021
- State of AP Vs Chekka Guru Murali Mohan and Ors on 19 Jul 2021 (Supreme Court crushed the Petition!)
- Chekka Guru Murali Mohan and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 19 Jan 2021
25. Revoke the GO pertaining to the appointment of EO for Sri Durgamalelswara Swamy temple, Vijayawada
26. YS Vivekananda Reddy Murder case
- What are the objections in entrusting YS Vivekananda Reddy murder case to CBI? YS Jagan reddy himself demanded for CBI investigation while being a Opposition Leader. What is your current stand after coming to Power now?
27. GVMC Elections
- When is the election notification for GVMC going to be announced?
28. Photos of YS Jagan Reddy on Panchayat Buildings
- No photo of PM in Parliament, No Chief Justice photo in High Court. But why CM Photo on Panchayat Buildings? [Investigate these case laws: https://www.casemine.com/search/in/Common%20Cause%20advertisements%20public%20funds]
29. Navaratnaalu – Pedalaku illu
- High Court: Can not give Amaravati lands to landless poor. No one side game like this allowed.
- How can you grab lands of poor? Assigned lands turned into House sites? Grab from one poor and dole out to another? KVPS Writ
- Trying to Grab Kakinada Mangrove forest area. Case details here. Attempted Disguising Technique: to construct homes for poor
- Another set of cases here.
- Converting Poramboke lands into Assessed Waste lands in Kadapa. Case details here. Attempted Disguising Technique: to grant house sites to poor
- Land grab in East Godavavi District. Case details here. Attempted Disguising Technique: To construct Gram Sachivalayam, Raithu Bharosa Kendram, YSR Clinic
- Attempt to allot lands to people from Economically Weaker Sections out side Amaravati region here.
- Summary dismissal at Supreme Court here.
30. Funds released under Central Employment Scheme
- Why funds released under Central Employment Scheme for the year 2018-19 to the tune of Rs. 1134 Cr not disbursed?
31. Obstructing the peaceful tour of N Chandrababu Naidu in Vizag
- DGP to be present in Court and give explanation how can notice be issued under section 151 CrPC.
- Under what authority/rule was the notice under 151 CrPC issued to NCBN
- Why no action is taken on officers who issues illegal notice under section 151 CrPC?
32. Withdrawal by MNCs
33. Trying to sell away Government Property
–
34. All TDP schemes renamed to YSR/Jagananna Schemes
NTR Vaidya seva Trust into YSR Arogya Sri
35. Shutter Down to Anna Canteens
36. Attempting to Abolish the Legislative Council of AP
37. Sand mining
38. Removal of L.V. Subramanyam
39. Non implementation of Disha Act
40. Special Status to AP
41. Decision of State Election Commissioner to postpone Panchayat Elections in AP by 6 weeks due to Pandemic nCOVID-19 (Coronavirus outbreak)
- State of AP Vs AP State Election Commission on 18 March 2020 [Supreme Court did not interfere with the Decision of SEC to postpone Panchayat elections]
- Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No. 5 of 2020 Promulgated on 10 April 2020 [Via this Ordinance, Rules were framed reducing SEC tenure from 6 years to 3 and making retired Judges only criteria to become a SEC, both squarely targetted to get Shri, Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar out of SEC role and engage Sri Justice V.Kanagaraj, Retired High Court Judge, as SEC of A.P State Election Commission; Attempted Disguising Technique: Ordinance to reform SEC, not sack Ramesh]
- The Ordinance No 5 of 2020 got quashed and along with it all other related GOs got kicked into drain, via [Dr N Ramesh Kumar IAS Vs State of AP on 29 May 2020].
- State of AP Vs N Ramesh Kumar IAS and Ors [Supreme Court held that…]
- State Election Commission also filed SLP which got tagged with above case here. So, no wastage of page for it.
- N Ramesh Kumar Vs Nilam Sawhney and Ors on 17 July 2020 [Contempt Proceedings initiated against Chief Secretary Nilam Sawhney and others]
42. Violation of Lockdown Norms of MLAs and Cabinet Ministers of the incumbent party
43. Styrene Gas Leakage in Vizag (Visakhapatnam) on the early hours 3.35AM on 07 May 2020 from LG Polymers
44. Sale of TTD properties donated by devotees
45. Suspense of AB Venkateshwara Rao (DG) IPS
- The DGP of AP Police was suspended but AP High Court reinstated him back into service here.
- The routine began and the SLP was filed at Supreme Court which granted a Stay on the operation of the Order of High Court here. 4 Lakhs was paid to the Legal team of a Senior Counsel and a AoR.
46. Lack of medical equipment for Corona Warrior such as PPE Kits
- Harassment to Dr Sudhakar [Since he was not in CBI/Police Custody, he was ordered to be released from the Mental Hospital]
- AP Police have brought in more illegal rules than those in Bihar.
47. Change in electricity slabs
48. Reduction in Government Pension Holders
49. Baseless Quid Pro Quo Allegation in Amaravati land dealings
50. Scam in purchase of COVID-19 kits
51. Pre-recorded and heavily Edited name-sake Press meets
52. Pension at 45 years only
53. Baseless Allegation of Chandrababu Naidu Benami
54. Baseless Allegation Kodi-katti
55. Baseless Allegation of SC/ST sub-plan funds diversion
56. Baseless Allegation of 100 Crores corruption in Pattiseema project
57. Baseless Allegation that Estimations are increased in Polavaram project (Allegation)
- Totally forgetting the above Baseless allegations vehemently trumpeted, request was sent to PM, begging to approve the estimates (yes, same estimates which were passed during NCBN tenure in 2017-18) here.
58. YCP Trolls (Incl MLA and MP) attack the Judges of AP High Court
- High Court of Andhra Pradesh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh [Trolling due to adverse order in English Medium case]
59. YCP MLA Alla Rama Krishna’s attempt to get TDP National Party Headquarters demolished
- Alla Rama Krishna Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 July 2020 [High Court questioned the Public interest in the PIL and dismissed it]
60. Delegation of powers to Secretaries of respective Departments to lodge complaints
- GO is available here.
61. Filing of time-barred SLPs (invariably to spend public money on some benefactors)
Despite fully aware that the petition is hopelessly time-barred, SLPs are being filed at Supreme Court and Supreme clearly observed it and put it in it’s order for eternity here.
62. Usage of photographs of State Functionaries in Government-funded Advertisements
A PIL was filed seeking removal of Photos of Government functionaries such as CMs in Government-funded Advertisements here.
63. Appointment of N Harinath Reddy as Assistant Solicitor General for High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Adv Solomon Raju Manchala challenged the Appointment of N Harinath Reddy as Assistant Solicitor General for High Court of Andhra Pradesh here.
64. Depriving pregnant, Old women of pension
AP High Court Ordered the State government to make pension payments and ascertain the eligibility of the petitioners in Gram Sabha after giving opportunity to the petitioners here.
65. Filing of false cases for possession of liquor
AP High Court, while disposing a couple of writ petitions, has ordered the Government to implement G.O.No.411 in letter and spirit and the action of the State in registering the crime on the ground that the alcohol is brought into Andhra Pradesh from the neighboring State is held to be bad in law. Go here.
66. Baseless Criminal Cases on Journalists and Social Media
- A false case was registered by AP CID on Telugu One YouTube channel owner but High Court Quashed it with an elaborate lecture on what is Police duty (thereby what is NOT) here.
67. Baseless Criminal case of Ex-Attorney General
- A false case was registered against Ex Attorney General Dammalapati Srinivas here.
- A Stay was granted against all further investigation and any coercive action on any of the alleged accused person.
- As usual, the stay was challenged in the Supreme Court here.
68. Tapping of Judges of AP High Court
- As the adverse orders against the ill-moves of State Govt are sky-rocketing on weekly basis, Govt seems to have stooped to Phone tapping of Judges. The case is here.
- High Court has scathing remarks against State Government to the tune of invoking Article 356 of Constitution of India… I am usre no better sense will prevail. Good for people of AP.
69. Land grabbing for Gannavaram Airport expansion, without paying Compensation to Land Owners
- State govt permitted Airports Authority of India (AAI) to proceed with expansion of Gannavaram airport without paying compensation for the land grabbed from
70. Hounding of Thullur MRO Anne Sudheer Babu
For doing his duties, Thullur MRO Anne Sudheer Babu is being hounded fruitlessly.
- AP HC had stayed all the proceedings until further order here.
- As usual, the junta went to SC and got a favorable Order here. Or so minions think and celebrated.
71. Demolition of Property of GITAM University
Suddenly, the District administration wakes up to the fact that certain portion of the land in use by the GITAM University was unauthorized and decides to demolish in the early dead night hours on 24th October, 2020
- Check out the proceedings here.
72. Arrest in violation of Arnesh Kumar judgment (41A CrPC)
For a facebook post, Jangala Sambasiva Rao was booked and arrested in just a day and the bozo Magistrate granted Remand too. High Court held that both Police and Magistrate violated the landmark precedent in Arnesh Kumar judgment and demanded reports from both here.
73. Government Guesthouse at Kapuluppada, Visakhapatnam
In a sly attempt to shift Executive Capital from Amaravati to Visakhapatnam, the State Government transferred 30 Acres from Greyhounds to Collector Visakhapatnam. High Court on a PIL, demanded Govt to produce complete set of plans before beginning alienation of lands here.
75. Review of all decisions taken by TDP Government
- Varla Ramaiah garu filed a Writ in AP HC here and obtained an interim stay on the operation of G.O.Rt.No. 1411 Dt 26.06.2019 and G.O.Rt.No. 344 Dt 21.02.2020
- State Government went to Supreme Court here.
76. Kidnaps of Public by Police – Multiple Habeas Corpus Petitions
There are multiple habeas corpus petitions filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which alarmed the High Court and it wanted to check on the aspect of ‘breakdown of Constitutional machinery” under Article 356 of Constitution.
- Case 1 : Reddi Govinda Rao Vs State of AP and Ors here.
- Supreme Court stayed the Order of AP High Court here.
- Case 2 : Rayidi Naga Lakshmi and Anr Vs State of AP and Ors here.
77. Sale of Government lands in the name of Mission Build AP
A PIL was filed to stay the same of government lands in a namesake scam called as Mission Build AP here.
78. Decision of State Election Commissioner to conduct Panchayat Elections in AP as the Pandemic nCOVID-19 (Coronavirus outbreak) subsided phenomenally in Andhra Pradesh.
- State Government got a stay on the Elections Schedule here from a single-judge bench.
- Division bench set it aside here.
- The cabal, reportedly, went to Supreme Court here and got a facepalm, again.
79. Passing of Privilege Motion in AP Assembly against State Election Commissioner Sri Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar for his letter/communication to AP Governor seeking action against rabid legislators who attacked SEC.
- Some Legislators got loose motions on the action being taken by SEC and vomit in press meets. SEC brought it to the notice of Governor via a Letter. This letter leaked to press. The Rabids got butt-hurt and moved a Privilege motion in Assembly (emailed it to Speaker). They seem to be depending on a Bombay High Court verdict in Nandlal case here.
80. SEC passed Order House Arresting an Advisor to Govt and prohibition on speaking with Media
- One of the many advisors was misusing his position to influence the officials working on Election duty so State Election Commissioner took him to task here.
81. Arrest of MP RaghuRama Krishnam Raju
- The Rebel MP of the YSRC Party was arrested on his birthday May 14th and was, as expected, tortured by the AP CID Police; Suo moto contempt proceedings initiated by AP High Court for not following the HC orders, news here.
- Later Supreme Court granted bail to him here.
82. MPTC, ZPTC Elections
- The Notification issued by the pet SEC of the the State Government was set aside a Single Judge Bench here.
83. Harassment to Anandaiah B who prepared and administered Ayurvedic medicine for COVID-related/induced difficulties
- AP High Court provided relief to Mr. Ananadaiah who was being harassed by the Police of AP here.
84. Punishment for headstrong Government Officials under Contempt of Court Act
- On 23 Jun 2021, AP High Court punished two officials (Panchayat Raj Commissioner Girija Shankar and horticulture commissioner Chiranjeevi Chowdary) of Government of AP, news here but later revised it to only fine news here and here.
- On 23 Jul 2021, AP High Court issued NBWs (non-bailable arrest warrants) against two IAS officials (Principal Secretary (Panchayat Raj) Gopala Krishna Dwivedi and BC Welfare department special chief secretary G Anantaramu) who were earlier part of Government of AP, news here.
- On 24 Jul 2021, AP High Court issued NBW to Finance Secretary Satyanarayana along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- but later fined only Rs.10/- and suspended the punishment, news here.
- On 02 Sep 2021, AP High Court punished 5 IAS officers (Manmohan Singh, Seshagiri babu, S S Rawat, Mutyla Raju) for contempt of Court along with fines news here.
85. Looting of natural resources
- On 26 Jul 2021, National Green Tribunal orders issuance of notices to the Looters of bauxite here.
Just a footer… :0)
Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency and Anr Vs CBI
In this Landmark judgment, 3-judge bench held as follows,
35. In view of above, situation of proceedings remaining pending for long on account of stay needs to be remedied. Remedy is required not only for corruption cases but for all civil and criminal cases where on account of stay, civil and criminal proceedings are held up. At times, proceedings are adjourned sine die on account of stay. Even after stay is vacated, intimation is not received and proceedings are not taken up. In an attempt to remedy this, situation, we consider it appropriate to direct that in all pending cases where stay against proceedings of a civil or criminal trial is operating, the same will come to an end on expiry of six months from today unless in an exceptional case by a speaking order such stay is extended. In cases where stay is granted in future, the same will end on expiry of six months from the date of such order unless similar extension is granted by a speaking order. The speaking order must show that the case was of such exceptional nature that continuing the stay was more important than having the trial finalized. The trial Court where order of stay of civil or criminal proceedings is produced, may fix a date not beyond six months of the order of stay so that on expiry of period of stay, proceedings can commence unless order of extension of stay is produced.
36. Thus, we declare the law to be that order framing charge is not purely an interlocutory order nor a final order. Jurisdiction of the High Court is not barred irrespective of the label of a petition, be it under Sections 397 or 482 Cr.P.C. or Article 227 of the Constitution. However, the said jurisdiction is to be exercised consistent with the legislative policy to ensure expeditious disposal of a trial without the same being in any manner hampered. Thus considered, the challenge to an order of charge should be entertained in a rarest of rare case only to correct a patent error of jurisdiction and not to re-appreciate the matter. Even where such challenge is entertained and stay is granted, the matter must be decided on day-to-day basis so that stay does not operate for an unduly long period. Though no mandatory time limit may be fixed, the decision may not exceed two-three months normally. If it remains pending longer, duration of stay should not exceed six months, unless extension is granted by a specific speaking order, as already indicated. Mandate of speedy justice applies to the PC Act cases as well as other cases where at trial stage proceedings are stayed by the higher court i.e. the High Court or a court below the High Court, as the case may be. In all pending matters before the High Courts or other courts relating to PC Act or all other civil or criminal cases, where stay of proceedings in a pending trial is operating, stay will automatically lapse after six months from today unless extended by a speaking order on above parameters. Same course may also be adopted by civil and criminal appellate/revisional courts under the jurisdiction of the High Courts. The trial courts may, on expiry of above period, resume the proceedings without waiting for any other intimation unless express order extending stay is produced.
37. The High Courts may also issue instructions to this effect and monitor the same so that civil or criminal proceedings do not remain pending for unduly period at the trial stage.
R.F. Nariman concurs and holds,
5. On a reference made to a 2-Judge Bench in the Delhi High Court, the learned Chief Justice framed, what he described as, “three facets which emanate for consideration”, as follows:
“(a) Whether an order framing charge under the 1988 Act would be treated as an interlocutory order thereby barring the exercise of revisional power of this Court?
(b) Whether the language employed in Section 19 of the 1988 Act which bars the revision would also bar the exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for all purposes?
(c) Whether the order framing charge can be assailed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India?”
Answers given to the “three facets” are in paragraph 33 as follows:
“33. In view of our aforesaid discussion, we proceed to answer the reference on following terms:
(a) An order framing charge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is an interlocutory order.
(b) As Section 19(3)(c) clearly bars revision against an interlocutory order and framing of charge being an interlocutory order a revision will not be
maintainable.
(c) A petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and a writ petition preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India are
maintainable.
(d) Even if a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is entertained by the High Court under no circumstances an order of stay should be passed regard being had to the prohibition contained in Section 19(3)(c) of the 1988 Act.
(e) The exercise of power either under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should be sparingly and in exceptional circumstances be exercised keeping in view the law laid down in Siya Ram Singh (supra), Vishesh Kumar (supra), Khalil
Ahmed Bashir Ahmed (supra), Kamal Nath & Others (supra) Ranjeet Singh (supra) and similar line of decisions in the field.
(f) It is settled law that jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot
be exercised as a “cloak of an appeal in disguise” or to re- appreciate evidence. The aforesaid proceedings should be used sparingly with great
care, caution, circumspection and only to prevent grave miscarriage of justice.”
Another 3-judge bench, again in Oct 2020, had to reiterate the position on the 6-months limit imposed by Supreme Courts, on all stays granted in Civil and Criminal Cases.
Another 2-judge bench clarified that the automatic vacation of 6-months stay only applies to civil and criminal matters only but not to writ petitions.
Citations: [2018 ILR KER 2 79], [2018 KHC 2 380], [2018 RCR CRIMINAL 2 415], [2018 SCALE 5 269],
Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/172610348/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5abbcd474a93267cfe9ebef0
Earlier Delhi High Court order (by Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji):
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58117f222713e179478f3bf5
Sushila Aggarwal and Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 29 January 2020
A wonderful pronouncement indeed, of a 5-eminent judge Constitutional bench which decided that once Anticipatory Bail is granted u/s 438 CrPC by either a Sessions Court or High Court, it does not have any time limit to it regarding it’s effect. Further, here it was held, No need to get a Regular Bail once AB is granted.
From now onwards, no need to covert Anticipatory Bail into a Regular Bail, upon closure of investigation by I.O. and filing of Charge sheet into a Trial Court.
Here is the Order passed.
And the 133-page jewel of judgment, endorsing the view taken by my favorite Justice Shri Dalveer Bhandavi in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre is below.
From Para 69 of the judgment of Justice Ravindra Bhat (On page 112),
69. Therefore, this court holds that the view expressed in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh, K.L. Verma, Nirmal Jeet Kaur, Satpal Singh, Adri Dharan Das, HDFC Bank, J.J. Manan and Naresh Kumar Yadav (supra) about the Court of Sessions, or the High Court, being obliged to grant anticipatory bail, for a limited duration, or to await the course of investigation, so as the “normal court” not being “bye passed” or that in certain kinds of serious offences, anticipatory bail should not be granted normally- including in economic offences, etc are not good law. The observations – which indicate that such time related or investigative event related conditions, should invariably be imposed at the time of grant of anticipatory bail are therefore, overruled. Similarly, the observations in Mhetre that “the courts should not impose restrictions on the ambit and scope of section 438 Cr.P.C. which are not envisaged by the Legislature. The court cannot rewrite the provision of the statute in the garb of interpreting it” is too wide and cannot be considered good law. It is one thing to say that as a matter of law, ordinarily special conditions (not mentioned in Section 438 (2) read with Section 437 (3) should not be imposed; it is an entirely different thing to say that in particular instances, having regard to the nature of the crime, the role of the accused, or some peculiar feature, special conditions should not be imposed. The judgment in Sibbia itself is an authority that such conditions can be imposed, but not in a routine or ordinary manner and that such conditions then become an inflexible “formula” which the courts would have to follow. Therefore, courts and can, use their discretion, having regard to the offence, the peculiar facts, the role of the offender, circumstances relating to him, his likelihood of subverting justice (or a fair investigation), likelihood of evading or fleeing justice- to impose special conditions. Imposing such conditions, would have to be on a case to case basis, and upon exercise of discretion by the court seized of the application under Section 438. In conclusion, it is held that imposing conditions such as those stated in Section 437 (2) while granting bail, are normal; equally, the condition that in the event of the police making out a case of a likely discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, person released on bail shall be liable to be taken in police custody for facilitating the discovery. Other conditions, which are restrictive, are not mandatory; nor is there any invariable rule that they should necessarily be imposed or that the anticipatory bail order would be for a time duration, or be valid till the filing of the FIR, or the recording of any statement under Section 161, Cr. PC, etc. Other conditions may be imposed, if the facts of the case so warrant.
Citations : [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 98], [2020 DLT SC 266 741]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/123660783/
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/sushila-aggarwal-and-others-versus-state-nct-of-delhi-and-another
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/sushila-aggarwal-and-others-versus-state-nct-of-delhi-and-another
5-judge bench holds no time limit could be fixed while granting anticipatory bail [Full report]
The life of this case is in detail available here.
Index of all Anticipatory Bail Matters is here and all Bail matters list is here.
S Nagalingam Vs Sivagami on 31 August 2001
Unless a valid marriage is proved, a second marriage stands invalid and no offence under section 494 IPC attracts.
Citations: [2001 AIR SC 3576], [2001 SCALE 6 42], [2001 JT 7 219], [2001 AIR SC 3372], [2001 SCC 7 487], [2001 SUPREME 6 772], [2001 SCC CRI 1273], [2001 OLR 2 648], [2001 ALD CRI 2 634], [2001 AWC SC 4 2998], [2001 ACR SC 3 2486], [2001 DMC SC 2 544], [2002 ALT CRI 1 69]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1386675/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ad9ce4b0149711411daa
Defamation Judgments
Here I list the landmark judgments from High Courts of India and Supreme Court of India.
1920-1925
- Gopal Naidu and another Vs King-Emperor on 22 December 1922 (Bombay High Court: the purpose of the codified statute is that on any point specifically dealt with by it the law shall be ascertained by interpreting the language used; the Court is not entitled to invoke the Common Law of England in the matter of defamation)
1926-1930
- Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926 (Madras High Court: the defamatory matter contained in the plaint are accusations in nature and they do not have absolute privilege but only qualified privilege as provided by sec 499 of IPC)
1931-1935
1936-1940
1941-1945
1946-1950
1951-1955
1956-1960
1961-1965
- Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal on 1 November, 1965 (Madras High Court: the defamatory matter contained in the plaint was admittedly signed and filed by the petitioner. There can be no doubt that there was publication of the defamatory matter)
1966-1970
- M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr on 13 November 1968 (Supreme Court of India: at common law there had never been a separate principle or rule that communications between a husband and wife during marriage were inadmissible in evidence on the ground of public policy.)
1971-1975
- Balraj Khanna and Ors Vs Moti Ram on 22 Apr 1971 (Supreme Court of India: as far as possible the words spoken or the statements actually made and which he alleges to be defamatory are before the court)
1976-1980
- Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra on 28 Feb 1978 (defamation has to be filed with in time limitation as per 468 CrPC)
1996-2000
- Mukund Martand Chitnis Vs Madhuri Mukund Chitnis And on 23 April 1991 ()
- Dr. J.Sudarshan Vs R.Sankaran on 16 August, 1991 (Madras High Court: The Civil Court would confine its decision to the trespass, threat of injury and damage by the servants, agents and workmen of the various defendants and the entitlement of token damages by the respondent, while the criminal Court, the passage being per se defamatory, would proceed to find out whether any one of the 10 Exceptions to S. 499, I.P.C. would apply.)
- Shatrughna Prasad Sinha Vs Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi and Ors on 10 September 1996 (SC: Statements made were not defamatory)
2001-2005
2006-2010
- M.K.Prabhakaran and Anr Vs T.E.Gangadharan and Anr on 7 March, 2006 (Kerala HC: ‘Once a statement has been filed in a court of law, that statement can be taken as published and if such a statement amounts to per se defamatory, it is the duty of the accused to establish that they are justified in making such a statement under any of the exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C.‘)
- Japani Sahoo Vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty on 27 Jul 2007 (SC: Limitation u/s 468 starts from the date of making the complaint and not on the date the cognizance was taken)
- Dayanand Rao Rangadal Vs Suresh and Ors on 14 August, 2008 (Karnataka High Court: “a written statement is a public document” and “a criminal proceeding can be initiated when a civil proceeding is ongoing”)
- Anubhav Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan on 5 October 2009 (At SC, all cases quashed, after settlement)
2011-2015
- Ms.Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 4 Jul 2011 (Defamation was filed after 3 years – Time barred)
- Gambhirsinh R.Dekare Vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel and Anr on 11 March 2013 (SC held allegation to the effect who authorised printing of defamatory statements is sufficient)
- Mr M Vs Mrs M on 7 February 2014 (Bombay HC: Divorce for husband due to mental cruelty via defamation by knife)
- Priyanka Srivastava and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 19 March, 2015 (Procedure for filing non-cognizable cases defined by Dipak Misra)
- Rajdeep Sardesai Vs State Of A.P on 14 May 2015 (SC dismissed Quash against AP HC Order)
- S.R.Sukumar Vs S.Sunaad Raghuram on 2 July 2015 (At SC: Amendment allowed in complaint)
2016-2020
- Subramanian Swamy Vs Union of India on 13 May, 2016 (Supreme Court: IPC 499 and 500 and CrPC 199 are Constitutionally valid)
- Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Saha Vs Hindustan Media Ventrues Ltd and Ors on 06 July 2017 (Delhi HC: No territorial jurisdiction)
- Mahadev I Todale Vs Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd and Ors on 10 July 2017 (Delhi HC:)
- E.Krishna and Ors Vs Srinivasa Chary on 17 November 2017 (AP HC: Not defamation)
- X Vs Y on 2 November, 2018 (Bombay HC: Impotent word is Defamatory)
- M.K.Varghese Cor Episcopa Vs State of Kerala on 08 January, 2020 (Kerala High Court: Complaint of defamation cannot be quashed under section 482 CrPC, as it does not have absolute privilege and only qualified privilege)
- Rabindra Nath Pal Vs Ratikanta Paul and Ors on 6 Mar 2020 (Defamation was filed after 3 years – Time barred)
MASTER SITEMAP here.
