M/S. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd Vs Union Of India and Anr on 28 April, 2004

In this landmark judgment (for 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) 6 SCC 254 : AIR 2004 SC 2321

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1876565/

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

Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar case

Posted on September 22 by ShadesOfKnife

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

Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar on 14 February, 2006

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.“

Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar on 25 October, 2007

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.“

Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar on 9 July, 2008

On 1 May 2019, Office Report was put up and the same is here.

Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar on 1 May, 2019 OR

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.

Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar on 1 May, 2019

Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors Vs Shitul H Chanchani and Anr on 13 August, 1998

Posted on September 5 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors Vs Shitul H Chanchani and Anr on 13 August, 1998

MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997

Posted on September 5 by ShadesOfKnife

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.”

MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/574884/

Citation: 1998 (5) SCC 749

State of Rajasthan Vs Smt. Kalki and Anr on 15 April, 1981

Posted on September 1 by ShadesOfKnife

On the same lines as this Supreme Judgment here in Dalip Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab, in this case also a 3-judge bench addressed the issue “Whether the word “related” means “interested”?”

State of Rajasthan Vs Smt. Kalki and Anr on 15 April, 1981

Dalip Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab on 15 May, 1953

Posted on September 1 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has held that a related witness would ordinarily speak the truth, but in the case of an enmity there may be a tendency to drag in an innocent person as an accused—each case has to be considered on its own facts.

From Paras 25 and 26,

“25. We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan.”
In the said case, it has also been further observed: (AIR p. 366, para 26)
“26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person. It is true, when feelings run high and there is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid for such a criticism
and the mere fact of relationship far from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of
truth.”

Dalip Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab on 15 May, 1953

Ajay Singh Vs UOI and Ors on 27 August, 2019

Posted on August 31 by ShadesOfKnife

In this order from Delhi High Court, it is held that the principle of “rounding off” has been recognised in law in a number of decisions to do substantial justice to folks who got border line marks less than the minimum marks set for the qualifying examination.

Ajay Singh Vs UOI and Ors on 27 August, 2019

News: https://barandbench.com/delhi-hc-permits-rounding-off-petitioners-marks-in-ll-b-to-enable-him-to-apply-for-jag/

Naveen Kohli Vs Neelu Kohli on 21 March, 2006

Posted on August 22 by ShadesOfKnife

Landmark judgment from Justice Shri Dalveer Bhandari regarding Mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for Divorce under Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

Naveen Kohli Vs Neelu Kohli on 21 March, 2006

Thana Singh Vs Central Bureau of Narcotics on 23 January, 2013

Posted on August 14 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Supreme Court has passed directions in this order that are restricted only to the Bail proceedings under the NDPS Act. The directions pertain to below stages of the trial proceedings.

Adjournments
Examination of witnesses
Workload of cases on Court
Access to Narcotics laboratories
Personnel
Re-testing Provisions
Monitoring of the NDPS cases
Availability of Public Prosecutors
Other recommendations

Thana Singh Vs Central Bureau of Narcotics on 23 January, 2013

Col. Rajnish Bhandari Vs Union of India on 02 August, 2019

Posted on August 7 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on Joseph Shine landmark judgment here, Supreme Court has struck down the adultery section 497 in the Jammu and Kashmir Ranbir Penal Code 1932 as well.

Col. Rajnish Bhandari Vs Union of India on 02 August, 2019

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Landmark Case

M/S. Kusum Ingots and Alloys Ltd Vs Union Of India and Anr on 28 April, 2004

Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar case

Ashok Chaturvedi and Ors Vs Shitul H Chanchani and Anr on 13 August, 1998

MS Pepsi Foods Ltd and Anr Vs Spl JM and Ors on 4 November, 1997

State of Rajasthan Vs Smt. Kalki and Anr on 15 April, 1981

Dalip Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab on 15 May, 1953

Ajay Singh Vs UOI and Ors on 27 August, 2019

Naveen Kohli Vs Neelu Kohli on 21 March, 2006

Thana Singh Vs Central Bureau of Narcotics on 23 January, 2013

Col. Rajnish Bhandari Vs Union of India on 02 August, 2019