Landmark judgment from Apex Court setting record straight regarding the Shared Household.
S.R. Batra and Anr Vs Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006Indiankanoon.org Link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/594165/
Citations: (2007) 3 SCC 169, 2007(2)ALD66(SC); 2007(1)AWC664(SC); 2007(3)CTC219; 136(2007)DLT1(SC); I(2007)DMC1SC; (2007)146PLR425; RLW2007(2)SC1546; 2006(13)SCALE652; 2007(1)LC0007(SC); 2007AIRSCW1088; AIR2007SC1118; (2007)2SCC(Cri)56; 2007(2)CivilLJ215(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)92
In this order from Calcutta High Court(appellate side),
Para 15,
According to the Law Lexicon, Third Edition (2012), the Latin Maxim “Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi” defines that the suppression of the truth is equivalent to the suggestion of falsehood. The suppression or failure to disclose what one party is bound to disclose to another, may amount to fraud. Where a person is found to be guilty of suppressio veri suggestio falsi for having concealed material information from scrutiny of the Court, he is not entitled for any equitable relief under order 39 of CPC (5 of 1908). [Arbind Kumar Pal v. Hazi Md. Faizullah Khan, AIR 2007 (NOC) 1035 (Pat) : (2006) 1 BLJR 430].
From Para 25,
I have no hesitation in saying that the doors of justice would be closed for alitigant whose case is based on falsehood or suppression of material facts. Fraud and justice never dwell together. They are alien to each other. Fraud pollutes the sanctity, regularity, orderliness and solemnity of the judicial proceedings. It is the bounden duty of the Court to keep the stream of justice absolutely clean.
Finally, from Para 29,
Bhriguram De Vs State of West Bengal and others on 20 September, 2018Before finally pronouncing my decision, I must state that this court, in all fairness gave an opportunity, after hearing and going through the documents produced by the respondents, to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition (with liberty to file afresh with better particulars). However, Mr. Saktipada Jana appearing on behalf of the petitioner, refused and pressed the writ petition unabated. One is reminded of the saying, “you can take a horse to the well, but cannot force it to drink”. In view of the same, I dismiss the writ petition in limine. I am of the view that exemplary costs should be awarded. However, on a compassionate plea made by Mr. Jana, the order as to costs is limited to Rs.5,000/- only, payable to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority, Kolkata, within two weeks from date.
Justice Dalveer Bhandari at Supreme Court, held that,
From Para 4,
This is a classic example which abundantly depicts the picture of how the civil litigation moves in our courts and howunscrupulous litigants (appellants in this case) can till eternity harass the respondents and their children by abusing the judicial system.
From Para 14,
According to Dr. Arun Mohan, twenty minutes spent at that time would have saved several years in court proceedings.
From Para 21,
The learned Single Judge observed that the present appellants belong to that category of litigants whose only motive is to create obstacles during the course of trial and not to let the trial conclude. Applications after applications are being filed by the appellants at every stage, even though orders of the trial court are based on sound reasoning. Moreover, the appellants have tried to mislead the court also by filing wrong synopsis and incorrect dates of events.
From Para 22,
Those litigants or their advocates who mislead the courts by filing wrong and incorrect particulars (the list of dates and events) must be dealt with heavy hands.
From Para 26,
It may be pertinent to mention that the appellants also moved transfer application apprehending adverse order from the trial judge, which was also dismissed by the learned District Judge. This conduct of the appellants demonstratesthat they are determined not to allow the trial court to proceed with the suit. They are creating all kinds of hurdles andobstacles at every stage of the proceedings.
From Para 30,
It is abundantly clear from the facts and circumstances of this case that the appellants have seriously created obstacles at every stage during the course of trial and virtually prevented the court from proceeding with the suit. This is a typical example of how an ordinary suit moves in our courts. Some cantankerous and unscrupulous litigants on one ground or the other do not permit the courts to proceed further in the matter.
From Para 34,
According to Dr. Mohan, in our legal system, uncalled for litigation gets encouragement because our courts do notimpose realistic costs. The parties raise unwarranted claims and defences and also adopt obstructionist and delaying tactics because the courts do not impose actual or realistic costs. Ordinarily, the successful party usually remains uncompensated in our courts and that operates as the main motivating factor for unscrupulous litigants. Unless the courts, by appropriate orders or directions remove the cause for motivation or the incentives, uncalled for litigation will continue to accrue, and there will be expansion and obstruction of the litigation. Court time and resources will be consumed and justice will be both delayed and denied.
From Para 44,
In the instant case when the entire question of title has been determined by the High Court and the Special Leave Petition against that judgment has been dismissed by this court, thereafter the trial court ought not to have framed such an issue on a point which has been finally determined upto this Court. In any case, the same was exclusively barred by the principles of res judicata. That clearly demonstrates total non-application of mind.
From Para 56,
Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors Vs Nirmala Devi and Ors on 4 July, 2011These appeals are consequently dismissed with costs, which we quantify as Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only). We are imposing the costs not out of anguish but by following the fundamental principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigation.
Hon’ble Apex Court held that,
Sachida Nand Singh and Anr Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 3 February, 1998The scope of the preliminary enquiry envisaged in Section 340(1) of the Code is to ascertain whether any offence affecting administration of justice ha been committed in respect of a document produced in Court or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court. In other words, the offence should have been committed during the time when the document was in custodia legis.
It would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court, could also be treated as on affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached the Court records.
Citation: (1998) 2 SCC 493
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1743953/
Hon’ble Apex court held some key aspects in this landmark judgment such as,
This is landmark judgment which held that a/c to Article 141 of Constitution of India, all judgments of Supreme Court of India are binding on all courts in India and they are applicable to all pending proceedings even with retrospective effect.
Maj. Genl. A.S.Gauraya and Anr Vs S.N.Thakur and Anr on 25 April, 1986In this case on perjury in a false 498A case, husband made allegations on knife, in this anticipatory bail application.
Aarish Asgar Qureshi Vs Fareed Ahmed Qureshi 26 February, 2019Previous order from Bombay HC here.
Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has laid down the procedure to be follow in Delhi by Police in regards to the CrPC Section 41A.
Amandeep Singh Johar Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 7 February, 2018
In this landmark judgment, a 2-judge Bench of Apex Court has held that a person can approach either High Court of a Sessions Court for a Regular bail under 439 CrPC, instead of exhausting the remedy of approaching the Magistrate Court.
Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 27 March, 2014News about this judgment:
This is the landmark judgment of Supreme Court, where in Hon’ble Justice Hans Raj Khanna has outlined the basic structure doctrine of the Constitution and that only those amendments which tend to affect the ‘basic structure of the Constitution’ are subject to judicial review.
Kesavananda Bharati Sripadagalvaru and Ors Vs State Of Kerala And Anr on 24 April, 1973Wikipedia : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesavananda_Bharati_v._State_of_Kerala