This a very good judgment from High Court of Bombay talking about binding nature of judgments, specifically termed as stare decisis.
Citation: [(1994) 206 ITR 727 (Bom)]
Indiankanoon.org Link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/583752/
Tag: Legal Procedure Explained – Interpretation of Statutes
Seema Vs Ashwani Kumar case
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/
State of Rajasthan Vs Smt. Kalki and Anr on 15 April, 1981
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”?”
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
Naveen Kohli Vs Neelu Kohli on 21 March, 2006
Landmark judgment from Justice Shri Dalveer Bhandari regarding Law around Mental cruelty and irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground for Divorce under Hindu Marriage Act 1955.
Citations : [2006 BOMCR SC 5 240], [2006 SUPREME 2 627], [2006 SCALE 3 252], [2006 AIR SC 1550], [2006 JT 3 491], [2006 ALLMR SC 4 190], [2006 MHLJ SC 4 242], [2006 SCR 3 53], [2006 MPLJ SC 3 1], [2006 AIOL 157], [2006 AIR SC 1675], [2006 SCC 4 558], [2006 DLT 128 360], [2006 AIR SCW 1550]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1643829/
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/naveen-kohli-vs-neelu-kohli
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae31e4b0149711413211
https://www.legitquest.com/case/naveen-kohli-v-neelu-kohli/26101
Other cases wherein Divorce was granted to Husband here.
MS Royal Sundaram Alliance Vs Mandala Yadagari Goud and Ors on 9 April, 2019
The only legal issue canvassed before Supreme Court in this case is that in the case of a motor accident where there is death of a person, who is a bachelor, whether the age of the deceased or the age of the dependents would be taken into account for calculating the multiplier.
Citations :
Other Sources :
Commissioner of Police Delhi Vs Devender Anand on 08 August, 2019
Apex Court has dustbinned the false criminal case instituted by the litigant on a litigation which is of a civil nature, sale purchase of a flat, citing that it is a abise of process of Court.
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
Col. Rajnish Bhandari Vs Union of India on 02 August, 2019
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.
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
Joseph Shine Vs Union of India on 27 September, 2018
Landmark judgment from Apex Court which struck down Sec 497 IPC as ultravires with Articles 14, 21 of Constitution of India.
Citations :
Other Sources :
T.C. Mathai and Anr Vs The District and Sessions Judge on 31 March, 1999
Apex Court held as follows, in last paragraph,
“Be that as it may, an agent cannot become a pleader for the party in criminal proceedings, unless the party secures permission from the court to appoint him to act in such proceedings. The respondent-couple have not even moved for such permission and hence no occasion has arisen so far to consider that aspect.”
Key passages from the judgment are,
The definition [of a Pleader u.s 2(q) of CrPC] envelopes two kinds of pleaders within its ambit. The first refers to legal practitioners who are authorised to practise law and the second refers to any other person. If it is the latter its essential requisite is that such person should have been appointed with the permission of the court to act in such proceedings. This is in tune with Section 32 of the Advocates Act 1961 which empowers a Court to permit any person, who is not enrolled as an advocate to appear before it in any particular case. But if he is to plead for another person in a criminal court, such permission should be sought for by that person.
It is not necessary that the pleader so appointed should be the power of attorney holder of the party in the case. What seems to be condition precedent is that his appointment should have preceded by grant of permission of the court. It is for the court to consider whether such permission is necessary in the given case and whether the person proposed to be appointed is capable of helping the court by pleading for the party, for arriving at proper findings on the issues involved in the case.………..
But if the person proposed to be appointed by the party is not such a qualified person the court has first to satisfy itself whether the expected assistance would be rendered by that person. The reason for the Parliament for fixing such a filter in the definition clause [Sec.2(q) of the Code] that prior permission must be secured before a non-advocate is appointed by the party to plead his cause in the court, is to enable the court to verify the level of equipment of such person for pleading on behalf of the party concerned.
Precedent used is here
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1728750/
Citation: [1999 SCC 3 614], [1999 AIR SC 1385], [1999 AIR SC 1062], [1999 SUPREME 3 308], [1999 SCC CRI 455], [1999 CRLJ SC 2092], [1999 SCALE 2 359], [1999 ACR SC 1 915], [1999 ALT CRI 1 226], [1999 CTC 1 720], [1999 GLH 1 829], [1999 KLJ 1 879], [1999 KLT SC 2 156], [1999 LW CRL 2 658], [1999 RCR CRIMINAL 2 373], [1999 SCR 2 305], [1999 JT SC 2 494], [1999 AIR SCW 1062]
Uday Shankar Triyar Vs Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh and Anr on 10 November, 2005
Apex Court listed out defects routinely found in Vakalatnamas filed in courts
(a) Failure to mention the name/s of the person/s executing the Vakalatnama, and leaving the relevant column blank;
(b) Failure to disclose the name, designation or authority of the person executing the Vakalatnama on behalf of the grantor (where the Vakalatnama is signed on behalf of a company, society or body) by either affixing a seal or by mentioning the name and designation below the signature of the executant (and failure to annex a copy of such authority with the Vakalatnama).
(c) Failure on the part of the pleader in whose favour the Vakalatnama is executed, to sign it in token of its acceptance.
(d) Failure to identify the person executing the Vakalatnama or failure to certify that the pleader has satisfied himself about the due execution of the Vakalatnama.
(e) Failure to mention the address of the pleader for purpose of service (in particular in cases of outstation counsel).
(f) Where the Vakalatnama is executed by someone for self and on behalf of someone else, failure to mention the fact that it is being so executed. For example, when a father and the minor children are parties, invariably there is a single signature of the father alone in the Vakalatnama without any endorsement/statement that the signature is for ’self and as guardian of his minor children’. Similarly, where a firm and its partner, or a company and its Director, or a Trust and its trustee, or an organisation and its office-bearer, execute a Vakalatnama, invariably there will be only one signature without even an endorsement that the signature is both in his/her personal capacity and as the person authorized to sign on behalf of the corporate body/firm/ society/organisation.
(g) Where the Vakalatnama is executed by a power-of-attorney holder of a party, failure to disclose that it is being executed by an Attorney-holder and failure to annex a copy of the power of attorney;
(h) Where several persons sign a single vakalatnama, failure to affix the signatures seriatim, without mentioning their serial numbers or names in brackets. (Many a time it is not possible to know who have signed the Vakalatnama where the signatures are illegible scrawls);
(i) Pleaders engaged by a client, in turn, executing vakalatnamas in favour of other pleaders for appearing in the same matter or for filing an appeal or revision. (It is not uncommon in some areas for mofussil lawyers to obtain signature of a litigant on a vakalatnama and come to the seat of the High Court, and engage a pleader for appearance in a higher court and execute a Vakalatnama in favour of such pleader).
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
