Revanasiddappa and Anr Vs Mallikarjun and Ors on 31 March 2011

Posted on April 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

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.

Revanasiddappa and Anr Vs Mallikarjun and Ors on 31 March 2011

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:

12574_2003_8_5_21000_Order_24-Feb-2020

The earlier Judgment contradicted by this one is Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors here.

Director of Settlements A.P. and Ors Vs M.R. Apparao and Anr on 20 March 2002

Posted on March 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held as follows,

An ’obiter dictum’ as distinguished from a ratio decidendi is an observation by Court on a legal question suggested in a case before it but not arising in such manner as to require a decision. Such an obiter may not have a binding precedent as the observation was unnecessary for the decision pronounced, but even though an obiter may not have a bind effect as a precedent, but it cannot be denied that it is of considerable weight. The law which will be binding under Article 141 would, therefore, extend to all observations of points raised and decided by the Court in a given case. So far as constitutional matters are concerned, it is a practice of the Court not to make any pronouncement on points not directly raised for its decision. The decision in a judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be assailed on the ground that certain aspects were not considered or the relevant provisions were not brought to the notice of the Court (see AIR 1970 SC 1002 and AIR 1973 SC 794). When Supreme Court decides a principle it would be the duty of the High Court or a subordinate Court to follow the decision of the Supreme Court. A judgment of the High Court which refuses to follow the decision and directions of the Supreme Court or seeks to revive a decision of the High Court which had been set aside by the Supreme Court is a nullity.

Director of Settlements A.P. and Ors Vs M.R. Apparao and Anr on 20 March 2002

Landmark Judgment of Kusum Ingots is here.

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

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Messrs. Vazir Sultan and Sons on 20 March 1959

Posted on March 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that,

It is no doubt true that this Court was not concerned with any agency agreement in the last mentioned case and the observations made by this Court there were by way of obiter dicta. The obiter dicta of this Court, however, are entitled to considerable weight and we on our part fully endorse the same.

The Commissioner of IT Vs Messrs. Vazir Sultan and Sons on 20 March 1959

Citations: [1959 ITR 36 175], [1959 AIR SC 814], [1959 SUPP SCR 2 375], [1959 SCR SUPL 2 375], [1959 ITR SC 36 175]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/776903/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab0de4b014971140b832

Landmark Judgment of Kusum Ingots is here.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs Meena Variyal and Ors on 2 April 2007

Posted on March 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that,

An obiter dictum of this Court may be binding only on the High Courts in the absence of a direct pronouncement on that question elsewhere by this Court. But as far as this Court is concerned, though not binding, it does have clear persuasive authority.

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs Meena Variyal and Ors on 2 April 2007

Citations: [2007 KLT SUPP 3 18], [2007 SCR 4 641], [2007 JCC 2 1280], [2007 WBLR 3 264], [2007 TNMAC 2 9], [2007 SCJ 3 498], [2007 GLR 3 2356], [2007 SCC CR 2 527], [2007 ILR KER 3 569], [2007 AIR SC 0 2362], [2007 MPHT 3 1], [2007 COMPCAS 137 116], [2007 SCC 5 428], [2007 ALLLJ 3 596], [2007 ALLSCR 0 1697], [2007 MLJ 2 1230], [2007 ALD 3 99], [2007 SUPREME 3 136], [2007 AIR KAR R 3 437], [2007 ACC 4 335], [2007 AIOL 359], [2007 SCALE 5 269], [2007 TAC 2 417], [2007 SCC CRI 2 527], [2007 SLT 9 251], [2007 AIR SC 1609], [2007 ACJ 0 1284], [2007 JT 5 65], [2008 LW 1 838], [2007 ANWR 1 545]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1964308/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae62e4b0149711413b05

Landmark Judgment of Kusum Ingots is here.

Sarwan Singh Lamba and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 May 1995

Posted on March 21, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that,

Para 17,

Normally even an obiter dictum is expected to be obeyed and followed.

TruePrint Version

TP_1995_4_scc_546_561_sandeeppamarati_gmailcom_20200320_233725

Citations: [1995 JT 5 386], [1995 AIR SC 1729], [1995 SCALE 3 457], [1995 SCC 4 546], [1995 SCC L&S 1064], [1995 ATC 30 585], [1995 BLJR 2 1295], [1995 SUPP SCR 1 427], [1995 SLJ SC 3 72], [1995 UPLBEC 2 1215]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/538878/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609acc5e4b014971140fb0f

Landmark Judgment of Kusum Ingots is here.

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

Posted on October 5, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark judgment (per 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 SCALE 5 304], [2004 AIR SC 2321], [2004 SCC 6 254], [2004 BOMCR SC SUPP 2 654], [2004 AIR SC 2766], [2004 SUPREME 3 757], [2004 JT SUPP 1 475], [2004 ALLMR SC 5 700], [2004 DLT 111 480], [2004 COMPCAS 120 672], [2004 ELT 168 3], [2004 AIC SC 19 730], [2004 BC 3 56], [2004 COMPLJ SC 3 1], [2004 CTC 3 365], [2004 DRJ 77 317], [2004 ECR SC 114 1013], [2005 ECR SC 118 151], [2004 ELT SC 186 3], [2004 JCR SC 3 92], [2004 JT SUPPL SC 1 475], [2004 PLR 138 626]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1876565/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae06e4b0149711412bc2

See this, this, this and this Supreme Court Judgments. Many High Courts have relied on the above aspect of this Judgment here.

Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 27 March, 2014

Posted on January 25, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

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, 2014

News about this judgment:

https://www.livelaw.in/courts-country-including-high-courts-extremely-careful-circumspect-concluding-judgment-supreme-court-per-incuriam-sc/

https://www.livelaw.in/bail-seekers-first-exhaust-sessions-court-remedy-approaching-high-court-sc-set-examine/

https://www.livelaw.in/accused-can-directly-approach-high-court-sessions-court-regular-bail-necessary-accused-apply-magistrate-first-sc/

Citations: [2014 AIOL 181], [2014 CRIMES SC 2 161], [2014 SCALE 4 215], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 2 313], [2014 SUPREME 3 285], [2014 AIR SC 2115], [2014 SLT 3 540], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 2 416], [2014 CRLJ SC 2245], [2014 JT 4 486], [2014 JCC SC 2 1264], [2014 AIR SC 1745], [2014 SCC 16 623], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 257], [2014 KERLT 2 809], [2014 CRILJ 2245], [2014 NCC 1 570], [2015 NCC 1 798]

Other Source Links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102030495/ and https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af48e4b01497114160a8

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Obiter Dicta

Revanasiddappa and Anr Vs Mallikarjun and Ors on 31 March 2011

Director of Settlements A.P. and Ors Vs M.R. Apparao and Anr on 20 March 2002

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs Messrs. Vazir Sultan and Sons on 20 March 1959

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd Vs Meena Variyal and Ors on 2 April 2007

Sarwan Singh Lamba and Ors Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 May 1995

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

Sundeep Kumar Bafna Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 27 March, 2014