Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate Vs Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate on 16 April, 2003

Posted on January 17, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court talks as follows regarding Mental Cruelty:

The question that requires to be answered first is as to whether the averments, accusations and character assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining the claim for divorce under Section 13(1) (i-a) of the Act. The position of law in this regard has come to be well settled and declared that leveling disgusting accusations of unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside wedlock and allegations of extra marital relationship is a grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions and standards would amount to worst form of insult and cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law, warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such allegations made in the written statement or suggested in the course of examination and by way of cross-examination satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as well as the High Court. We find that they are of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that and rendered the maintenance of matrimonial home impossible.

Precisely,

As to what constitute the required mental cruelty for purposes of the said provision, in our view, will not depend upon the numerical count of such incidents or only on the continuous course of such conduct, but really go by the intensity, gravity and stigmatic impact of it when meted out even once and the deleterious effect of it on the mental attitude, necessary for maintaining a conducive matrimonial home. If the taunts, complaints and reproaches are of ordinary nature only, the Courts perhaps need consider the further question as to whether their continuance or persistence over a period time render, what normally would, otherwise, not be a so serious an act to be so injurious and painful as to make the spouse charged with them genuinely and reasonable conclude that the maintenance of matrimonial home is not possible any longer. A conscious and deliberate statement leveled with pungency and that too placed on record, through the written statement, cannot so lightly be ignored or brushed aside, to be of no consequence merely because it came to be removed from the record only.

Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate Vs Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate on 16 April, 2003

Citations : [2003 SCC 6 334], [2003 ALLMR SC 3 777], [2003 AIR SC 2530], [2003 SUPREME 3 416], [2003 AIR SC 2462], [2003 SCALE 4 134], [2004 BOMCR SC 2 384], [2003 ALD SC 3 124], [2003 AWC SC 3 2101], [2003 BLJR 3 1658], [2003 DMC SC 1 685], [2003 JCR SC 3 1], [2003 JT SC 4 85], [2003 LW 4 609], [2003 MLJ SC 3 115], [2003 PLJR 2 200], [2003 SCR 3 607], [2003 UC 2 1211], [2003 UJ 2 947], [2003 AIR SCW 2530]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1228342/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ade1e4b01497114126d8

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/vijay-kumar-ramachandra-bhate-vs-neela-vijay-kumar-bhate

Sri Kathi Narsinga Rao Vs Kodi Supriya and Anr on 29 Sep 2016

Posted on November 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on Bipin Shantilal Panchal here, and properly identifying that certain judgments from Supreme Court have not considered Bipin Panchal, correctly held that, except for Stamp duty and Registration fee, all other objections to any document sought to be introduced during evidence stage have to be parked towards the end of trial and considered then while judgment stage.

From Para 15,

…
Coming to the expression in Shalimar Chemical Works Limited v. Surendra Oil and Dal Mills (Refineries), where it was no doubt observed that admissibility of document held to be decided at the stage of admission by marking, instead of leaving to be decided subsequently. The facts therein were Xerox copy of the trade mark registration certificate (which is in fact the suit document) without production of original even objected by opposite party from the trial Court permitted to mark subject to objection on proof and admissibility held wrong procedure. In fact it was observed that from same is the suit document and no foundation as to what happened to the original to receive as Xerox copy of the suit claim which is the trademark registration certificate, it was observed that lower appellate Court having received the document under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC without exhibit and without opportunity to the other side to rebut the evidence simply relied on it by discussing the same as if admitted in evidence that was found fault. Thereby the expression in Shalimar Chemicals supra confine to the facts for no law laid down of in any case secondary evidence cannot be permitted subject to objection. In fact the earlier expression of the Apex Court in Bipin Shantilal Panchal v. State Of Gujarat particularly Para 12 and Navjot Sandhu @ Afzalguru supra holding any objection (other than on stamp duty and registration) is while marking be kept open for decision finally including on secondary evidence admissibility. Above two expressions of the Apex Court not came for consideration in Shalimar Chemical Supra.

From Para 16,

16. In fact from the expression in Bipin Shantilal there was a direction as guidance to be followed by all Courts while marking documents including on secondary evidence as subject to objections by let open to decide ultimately on the objection while recording the evidence, unless it touches stamp duty and registration to decide instantly. In fact Shalimar Chemicals supra particularly at Para 10 internal Para 20, the expression of the Apex Court in RVE Venkatachala Gounder v. Arulmigu Viswesaraswami and V.P Temple, referred and relied which speaks about objections as to admissibility of documents in evidence may be classified into 2 classes, one is objection that the document which is sought to be proved is inadmissible and the other towards the mode of proof. In the case of objection as to admissibility, it is only a procedural aspect, if not raised while marking, it is not open to raise later including on secondary evidence for as good as primary evidence. Whereas objection as to mode of proof even not raised while marking unless it is proved it cannot be considered in evidence for which there is no waiver, thereby even no objections raised on mode or method of proof there is no waiver to consider document proved or not from objection can be raised on proof at any time but for on the objection as to nature of document for its admissibility if not raised while marking that amounts to waiver.

Finally, from Para 18,

18. From these expressions, even once the certified copy to a certified copy is within the meaning of secondary evidence and any objection to exhibit secondary evidence though in Shalimar Chemicals Supra says to decide instantly for admissibility, from the earlier expressions categorically held directing all courts to follow particularly from Bipin Shanti Lal supra and in Afzal Guru supra that but for objections on stamp duty and registration to decide instantaneously any other objection raised while marking is to record as subject to objection to decide ultimately at the end of trial and not to decide instantaneously and thus against said conclusion arrived by the lower Court, there is nothing to sit in revision against the impugned orders of the lower Court.

Sri Kathi Narsinga Rao Vs Kodi Supriya and Anr on 29 Sep 2016

Citations : [2016 SCC ONLINE HYD 346]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/115678797/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58ae76214a9326593c4a168c

B.G. Prakash Kumar Vs The Commissioner on 23 Feb 2015

Posted on October 31, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

In regards to the explanation given to section 197 CrPC, Karnataka High Court categorically held as follows,

20. The submission that the sanction is necessary, as the appellants are not facing the charges under the Sections enumerated in the newly inserted Explanation to Section 197 does not commend itself to us. The Memorandum explaining the modifications contained in the Criminal Law Amendment 2013 itself states that the Explanation to Section 197 is proposed to be inserted so as to clarify that no sanction is required for prosecuting a public servant, if the offence relates to crimes against woman. Such a clarification cannot be stretched to mean that the sanction for prosecuting a public servant is a must, if the offence alleged does not relate to a crime against woman.

B.G. Prakash Kumar Vs The Commissioner on 23 Feb 2015

Citations :

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/90130688/

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab on 21 Jan 2015

Posted on October 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Dipak Misra decried the practice of Trial/Session Court judges in giving adjournments on mere asking by the parties, in spite of the presence of the witnesses willing to be examined fully.

From Para 41,

41. Before parting with the case we are constrained to reiterate what we have said in the beginning. We have expressed our agony and anguish the manner in which trials in respect of serious offences relating to corruption are being conducted by the trial courts. Adjournments are sought on the drop of a hat by the counsel, even though the witness is present in court, contrary to all principles of holding a trial. That apart, after the examination-in-chief of a witness is over, adjournment is sought for cross-examination and the disquieting feature is that the trial courts grant time. The law requires special reasons to be recorded for grant of time but the same is not taken note of. As has been noticed earlier, in the instant case the cross-examination has taken place after a year and 8 months allowing ample time to pressurize the witness and to gain over him by adopting all kinds of tactics. There is no cavil over the proposition that there has to be a fair and proper trial but the duty of the court while conducting the trial to be guided by the mandate of the law, the conceptual fairness and above all bearing in mind its sacrosanct duty to arrive at the truth on the basis of the material brought on record. If an accused for his benefit takes the trial on the path of total mockery, it cannot be countenanced. The Court has a sacred duty to see that the trial is conducted as per law. If adjournments are granted in this manner it would tantamount to violation of rule of law and eventually turn such trials to a farce. It is legally impermissible and jurisprudentially abominable. The trial courts are expected in law to follow the command of the procedure relating to trial and not yield to the request of the counsel to grant adjournment for non-acceptable reasons. In fact, it is not all appreciable to call a witness for cross-examination after such a long span of time. It is imperative if the examination-in-chief is over, the cross-examination should be completed on the same day. If the examination of a witness continues till late hours the trial can be adjourned to the next day for cross-examination. It is inconceivable in law that the cross-examination should be deferred for such a long time. It is anathema to the concept of proper and fair trial. The duty of the court is to see that not only the interest of the accused as per law is protected but also the societal and collective interest is safe-guarded. It is distressing to note that despite series of judgments of this Court, the habit of granting adjournment, really an ailment, continues. How long shall we say, “Awake! Arise!”. There is a constant discomfort. Therefore, we think it appropriate that the copies of the judgment be sent to the learned Chief Justices of all the High Courts for circulating the same among the learned trial Judges with a command to follow the principles relating to trial in a requisite manner and not to defer the cross-examination of a witness at their pleasure or at the leisure of the defence counsel, for it eventually makes the trial an apology for trial and compels the whole society to suffer chicanery. Let it be remembered that law cannot allowed to be lonely; a destitute.

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab on 21 Jan 2015

Citations: [2015 SCC 3 220], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 53]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/188951670/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/581180e72713e179479dda10

This was followed in this decision here.

Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992

Posted on July 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court held that, “Any demand for presents after the marriage, but not having a connection with the marriage of the parties will not constitute a demand for dowry”

From Para 6,

Dowry in the sense of that expression contemplated by Act 28 of 1961 is a demand for property or valuable security having an inextricable nexus with the marriage. In other words it is a consideration from the side of the bride’s parents or relatives to the groom or his parents and/or guardian for the agreement to wed the bride-to-be. Where the demand for property or valuable security has no connection with the consideration for the marriage, it will not amount to a demand for dowry. In the instant case, the evidence has to be properly understood and thus viewed it is clear that what the appellants wanted was valuable presents to be made to appellant Mahadeo on the occasion of festivals like Deepavali. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the presents are customarily given to sons-in-law on festive occasions and giving of such presents is in no way connected with the wedding or marriage. It is a post-marriage expectation and the expectation and performance thereof once restricted to the affluents and the middle class, has now spread its tentacles to the poor also. The expectation is because of the relationship, but without any nexus to the agreement to marry. Therefore, it does not amount to dowry. Any demand for presents after the marriage, but not having a connection with the marriage of the parties will not constitute a demand for dowry. This is clear from the qualifying clause of section 2 in Act 28 of 1961 reproduced above.

Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992

Citations: [1993 (3) BomCR 473]

PIL – Dowry Givers should be prosecuted (Veerabhadra Rao Pamarathi and Anr Vs UOI and Ors)

Posted on June 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

After losing out (didn’t lose the case but didn’t get opportunity to argue in-person) in an earlier attempt here, I decided to take Writ Petition route as I am (along with my parents!) one of the affected person of this biased implementation of a convoluted interpretation of section 7(3) of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (amended in 1986). Also, decided to decentralize my PIL prayers.

So picked up this prayer from earlier attempt and worked on writing the WP.

Issue a Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to Respondents, such that there is no ambiguity to them whether to prosecute the Dowry givers under section 3 of DP Act read with section 7 of DP Act and no discrimination is made between Dowry Giver and Dowry Taker, under Section 3(1) of DP Act, in similar fashion as that of made by Bangladesh.

Key Point

Shouldn’t all Dowry givers be booked and prosecuted as per section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (as amended from time to time) or not?

Arguments – Counter Arguments

Another simple point from the Bare Act itself.

Prayer

Prosecute Dowry Givers u/s 3(1) without protecting them u/s 7(3) = Article 14 and 21 compliance

Alternatively, strike down words ‘Gives’ and ‘abets to give’ from section 3(1) = ultra-vires to Article 14 and 21 compliance and contrary to legislative intent

Either-way, I win!

Full prayers from the Writ Petitions:

All the cited case laws are listed here.

Malreddy Ramachandra Reddy Vs C. Vanaja Reddy and Ors on 16 April 2003 (AP HC)
Ram Gopal Sah Vs State Of Jharkhand on 03 December 2008 (Jharkhand HC)
Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010 (Delhi HC)
Yashpal Kumar Vs Bhola Nath Khanna and Anr on 1 March 2012 (Delhi HC)
Kudarathullah Khan Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 21 March 2012 (AP HC)
Viral Dhulia Vs Virag Dhulia on 25 July 2013 (Kar HC)
Chitranjan Dev Goel and Ors Vs State (Nct of Delhi) and Ors on 21 March 2016 (Del HC)

ACTION STARTS:

WP (in the name of my parents, and not in my name) is filed on 14-09-2021. WP No. 20594 of 2021 (WPSR 27260/2021). Here is the affidavit.

Writ Petition seeking direction against misinterpretation of Sec 7(3) of DP Act 1961 3.5 ONLY AFFIDAVIT

Case Details

Filed a memo with additional information on 17-09-2021:

MEMO for Extra Info

Order Passed on 20-09-2021

Initial hearing before admission on 20-09-2021. Notices issued to the Respondents. Government Advocates take notice and sought 4 weeks time to file Counters.

Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 20 Sep 2021

Next Date of Hearing : 13-12-2021

The case was transferred from Court-14 to Court-1, since there is a question of law involved.
It is almost 90 days from the date of issue of notices to Government advocates but I am still waiting for the Counters to be filed by them. I suspect, they will continue to seek additional time. Let’s see how this gamble goes on…

Since the petitioner is questioning the vires of the Dowry Prohibition Act, Registry is directed to post the matter before the appropriate Bench as per roster.

2 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 13 Dec 2021

Next Date of Hearing : 16-12-2021

My Advocate took two weeks time.

On the request made by Ms. Sridevi Jampani, learned counsel for the petitioners, post this case after two weeks.

3 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 16 Dec 2021

Next Date of Hearing : 30-12-2021

Due to COVID-19 situation, the Court-1 took up only part of the Causelist and rest of the cases, including mine, was not listed. No future date known.

Next Date of Hearing : 13-06-2022

Since 4 months, not a single listing was possible. Frankly, not asked/mentioned/represented appropriately by the advocate. Will wait out the Vacation period for High Court and then get the advocate changed to… myself. Hence filed the NOC obtained from previous advocate and my vakalat. (Expense: Rs.300/-)

Next Date of Hearing : 14-06-2022

I am the new Advocate for this Writ Petition.

Updated on eCourts Website…

‘

Updated on eCourts app…

Updated on AP High Court Case Status website…

Next Date of Hearing : 23-06-2022

I went and appeared before Court 1 today. Got a Court slip filled and ready. Gathered up courage (my first time facing a High Court judge, that too Chief Justice!) and stepped up to the mike. Cleared my throat and uttered few words.

—————————————

Me: The matter pertains to a Writ Petition filed in Sep 2021.

CJ: What is the urgency?

Me: The matter was not listed after Dec 2021.

CJ: We have around 2.5 lakh cases pending, some for much more time than that. (Don’t know if he is proud/sad about this). Again what is the urgency?

Me: The matter pertains to critical question of law regarding Dowry Prohibition Act

CJ: No urgency. Mention rejected.

—————————————

What do I do next?

Next Date of Hearing : 26-07-2022

Going to take a different plea for urgency.

– Court-14 issues Notices to the Respondents on 08-09-2021.

– Government Advocates take the notice and seek 4 weeks time to file Counters on same day.

– Court-14 transfers the Writ Petition to Court-1 since there is a question on the vires of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 on 13-12-2021.

– Lapse of 120 days on 06-01-2022

(as per amended Rules 12(i)(a) and 12(ii) of AP HC Writ Proceeding Rules 1977)

-[12(i)(a) Every Respondent in every Writ Petition intending to enter appearance and oppose any Writ Petition on which notice is issued by the High Court, shall enter appearance and file a Counter Affidavit in opposition as soon as may be and in any event not later than one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of notice in the Writ Petition or the Service of Rule nisi on the said Respondent”.]

-[12(ii) “No counter affidavit filed beyond one hundred and twenty days from the date of service of notice on the opposite party or parties in the Writ Petition shall be received or be used at the hearing of the Writ Petition unless the Court grants leave to file counter affidavit beyond the stipulated period, subject to such terms as the Court may deem fit.”]

– Till date none of the Respondents filed any Counter so I can submit to Court-1 to strike out the defence of the Respondents and pass orders in the Writ, as the Hon’ble Court finds appropriate.

Union of India
State of Andhra Pradesh
Director General of Police
Station House Officer, Disha Women Police Station, Ongole

On Next Date of Hearing : 26-07-2022

I went and appeared before Court 1 today. Got a Court slip filled and ready.

—————————————

Me: The matter pertains to a Writ Petition filed in Sep 2021 and Notices were issued also.

CJ: What is the urgency?

Me: The respondents have not filed any Counter Affidavits till date. As per Writ Rules, only 120 days time is given to respondents to file their Counter Affidavits but in this case already 320 days elapsed.

CJ: If we go by Rules, I will have to dismiss many petitions. May be in future, you will be respondent. What to do then? (Don’t know how Petition can be dismissed for fault of Respondent?). Again what is the urgency?

Me: (silent)

After lunch time, I get to know that my Court Slip/Mentioning was rejected by CJ. Again.

—————————————

Here is the rejected Court slip.

What do I do next? God knows!

Next Date of Hearing : 05-08-2022

Since I was not in a habit of checking the listing of my cases (officially just two; for one, CJ doesn’t see urgency, for another, File not available at AP HC), I totally missed to appear before the Court in which this case got listed miraculously. Also since it was my 40th birthday, I had reached my home town in the morning of 5th August.

See the time at which I received the SMSs (I got them after the business of the Court ended)

[Note: Filed RTI application to AP HC, asking for the number of Writs for which Counter was NOT filed within 120 days. Interesting reply awaited!]

2022-08-05 Listing of 20594 of 2021

Here is the order passed. Not sure if Counter is filed by the Respondent No.1 (Union of India)

4 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 05 Aug 2022

Next Date of Hearing : 30-09-2022

The matter came before Justice AV Sesha Sai and Justice D Venkata Ramana. Just before lunch, the case was called up and I and Sridevi madam pushed for admission of case and disposal of IA.No. 1 which is stay petition. The case was directed to be listed after vacation.

Next Date of Hearing : 10-05-2023

The previous couple weeks went in roaming around couple of high-headed posting clerks in Criminal Posting Section. I had to move a Court slip the previous day for the case to be listed today. Thanks to those who helped me.

The Division bench comprised Justice U Durga Prasad Rao and Justice T. Mallikarjuna Rao. When my name was called out, I was trembling. For fear of sabotaging everything that I worked on for over 5 years. The short interaction went fine, as follows.

UDPR J(smiling): So husband is seeking prosecution of In-law?
Sandeep: No your honor, his parents are seeking prosecution of the parents of their daughter-in-law

UDPR J: Those giving dowry are to be prosecuted by law under Dowry Prohibition Act 1961?
Sandeep: Yes your honor

UDPR J: Is there any case law on this aspect?
Sandeep: Yes your honor, the case laws are annexed

Other side was directed to come prepared on next date (Section 3, 4 of DP Act) and next date was granted for 15-06-2023. Finally for Counters and for hearing (and disposal, hopefully!). No stay was granted on Trial Court proceedings.

5 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 10 May 2022

As usual the SMS Alert came at 4.15 PM

Next Date of Hearing : 15-06-2023

Again 3 weeks of time is given.

6 Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 15 Jun 2023

Next Date of Hearing : 5-07-2023

The Petition was not listed. Reason: The Judges were busy with interviewing the prospective Junior Civil Judges!!!

Next Date of Hearing : 25-07-2023

After waiting for the petition to be listed for over 2 weeks, I mentioned the matter before the Division Bench. It was directed to be listed on 27 July 2023. Yipieeeee!

Next Date of Hearing : 27-07-2023

Again 2 more weeks of time given, on Respondent’s request and the judge denied stay on trial Court proceedings. But Judge said since there is possibility of wide implications, he wants the Respondents to file Counters. Finally. I agreed.

No Order was passed though.

Next Date of Hearing : 11-08-2023

It was directed that the WP be listed on 23-08-2023 (Landing of Vikram on the Lunar south!). Again 2 weeks time given, inspite of saying finally for Counters, thrice. Bench orally indicated that they want to learn the views of Advocate General.

Next Date of Hearing : 23-08-2023

Came rushing to Mangalagiri but the WP was NOT listed. So I decided to mention it on 24-08-2023.

Next Date of Hearing : 24-08-2023

Interesting date… I mentioned the matter (out of list!) and the Bench said we will hear the views of AG today. So I had to wait until item 14 when learned Advocate General (AG) would present his arguments in a matter, after which the bench sought the views of AG. At that moment, a battery of 20+ advocates gathered around the bench. Each of them expressed varied views and they laughed it out. I had to keep my cool. The matter is listed (compulsory) for 08 Sep 2023.

2023-08-24 Court slip - Compulsory Listing on 08 Sep 2023

List of mentions…

Next Date of Hearing : 08-09-2023

Due to change in roster, this case got transferred to Court-1. I mentioned the case before Court-1 and it was directed to be listed shortly.

Final Outcome : 26-09-2023

The case is dismissed. Awaiting Order copy. Judges raised these points…

I – There can be only two possibilities: Dowry giving is a crime or not
J – No, Why only two?

J – Have you followed Sakiri Vasu Vs State of UP
I – Yes, sent representations to SHO, DGP, Home Secretary
J – Nope, that is not sufficient compliance

I – My prayer is to interpret the provisions of DP Act and declare that Dowry giving is a crime
J – We do not do that kind of declaring a provision.
I – You can do that on a petition, such as this.
J – Nope

I – Three is no protection to dowry givers even u/s 7(3) of DP Act
J – They are aggrieved persons

Final Judgment

Veerabhadra Rao Pamarati and Anr Vs UOI and Ors on 26 Sep 2023

Next Steps

I am looking at the following next steps and discussing them with relevant people (first finding them)…

1. SLP at SCI

2. New PIL at any other HC, with limited prayer, to avoid reasons given by APHC

3. File a PIL directly at SC under Article 32

4. Mystery remedy…

Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors on 7 August 2014

Posted on May 16, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This judgment from Supreme Court hits the final nail of those persons who say a High Court does not have territorial jurisdiction beyond it’s borders. It also cites Kusum Ingots where by Supreme Court has expressed an Obiter Dicta (Judicial opinion, different from ratio decidendi, which is word of Judge based on case facts) to the same effect.

From Para 11

11. On a plain reading of the amended provisions in clause (2), it is clear that now the High Court can issue a writ when the person or the authority against whom the writ is issued is located outside its territorial jurisdiction, if the cause of action wholly or partially arises within the court’s territorial jurisdiction. Cause of action for the purpose of Article 226(2) of the Constitution, for all intent and purpose must be assigned the same meaning as envisaged under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The expression cause of action has not been defined either in the Code of Civil Procedure or the Constitution. Cause of action is bundle of facts which is necessary for the plaintiff to prove in the suit before he can succeed. The term “cause of action” as appearing in clause (2) came up for consideration time and again before this Court.

Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors on 7 August 2014

Citations: [2014 AIR SC 3607], [2014 AJR 4 410], [2014 ALR 106 710], [2014 AWC SC 5 4947], [2014 SCSUPPL CHN 5 192], [2014 FLR 143 1015], [2014 JLJR 4 69], [2014 PLJR 4 227], [2014 SCALE 9 244], [2014 SCC 9 329], [2014 SCJ 7 307], [2014 SCT SC 4 129], [2014 SLJ SC 3 175], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 610], [2014 AIC 142 193], [2014 ALLLR 106 710], [2014 KHC 0 4507], [2014 AIOL 481], [2014 JT 9 46], [2014 SLT 6 703], [2014 SUPREME 5 689], [2015 LW 1 810], [2014 CALHN 5 192]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70426214/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af57e4b01497114161bb

This was followed in this 2-judge bench judgment of Allahabad High Court here.

New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd on 4 March 2020

Posted on May 10, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Vineet Saran sitting in a 5-Judge bench delivered this reference judgment on the following two questions of law.

Question-1

Whether the District Forum has power to extend the time for filing of response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days, as envisaged under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act?

Answered as follows:

To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act

Question-2

What would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

Answered as follows:

the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.

New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd on 4 March 2020

Citations: [AIR 2020 SC 1267], [2020 SCC OnLine SC 287]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96395504/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e69d2383321bc624fea2d34

C Krishna Priya Vs State of AP on 14 September 2018

Posted on March 19, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Another judgment from Erstwhile High Court of AP which rapped on the knuckles of the JMFC who dismissed the Discharge petition filed u/s 239 CrPC, where there were no specific allegations on the petitioner.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that at the time of marriage of the complainant with the Accused No.1, the petitioner was 12 years old. No specific allegations are made against the petitioner, either in the charge sheet or in the statement of list of witnesses, except ominous allegations that the petitioner being sister of A.1, also demanded for additional dowry of Rs.3 lakhs. Therefore, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner cannot be maintained.
7. The learned public prosecutor appearing for the respondent state, fairly conceded that no specific allegations are made against the petitioner except a vague allegation that the petitioner also demanded for additional dowry.
8. Having heard both the counsel and from the perusal of the material on record, particularly, the charge sheet what all that is stated against the petitioner herein is that A-1 to A-4 demanded LW.1 to get additional dowry of Rs.3 lakhs for doing business and demanded LW1 to sign on diverse papers to enable the A.1 to marry another girl. In fact no specific dates, month or year have been mentioned. The said allegation is as vague as possible.

Now Start music…

9. In the recent times, various complaints are being lodged for the offences under Section 498-A IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, in which, whether any allegation is made out or not, all the family members are being roped in as accused only for the purpose of harassing the innocent family members whereby forcing them to come to terms.
10. From the above, this Court is of the opinion that when no specific allegations are made against the petitioner who is the sister of A.1, the continuation of proceedings against her would amount to abuse of process of the Court, apart from putting the petitioner to undue hardship of facing the trial. As such, this court is inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Court below in declaring the discharge of the petitioner.

C Krishna Priya Vs State of AP on 14 September 2018

Citations: [

B.S.Neelakanta and Anr Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 04 December 2013

Posted on March 7, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

AP High Court has rightly held the various counts of errors committed by the Trial Court magistrate in dismissing a Discharge Petition filed u/s 239.

B.S.Neelakanta and Anr Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 04 December 2013

Citations: [2014(1) Law Summary (A.P.) 266], [2014(1) ALD (Crl) 611 (AP)], [2014(2) ALT (Crl) 237 (AP)]

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: Sandeep Pamarati

Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate Vs Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate on 16 April, 2003

Sri Kathi Narsinga Rao Vs Kodi Supriya and Anr on 29 Sep 2016

B.G. Prakash Kumar Vs The Commissioner on 23 Feb 2015

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Punjab on 21 Jan 2015

Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992

PIL – Dowry Givers should be prosecuted (Veerabhadra Rao Pamarathi and Anr Vs UOI and Ors)

Nawal Kishore Sharma Vs Union of India and Ors on 7 August 2014

New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd on 4 March 2020

C Krishna Priya Vs State of AP on 14 September 2018

B.S.Neelakanta and Anr Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 04 December 2013