Legal Updates
Legal Updates
The Supreme Court in the matter of Archana v. State of West Bengal held that the power under Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) may be invoked after the deposition or the examination-in-chief of a witness by the Magistrate.
The Supreme Court (SC) in the matter of Satbir Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. allowed an application filed by a witness under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking to call him again for examination.
The Delhi High Court in the case of Ravi Bhushan Upadhyay v. The State held that Courts cannot be used as matrimonial facilitators for pressurizing the accused to get married to the victim or be denied bail in sexual assault cases.
The Supreme Court (SC) in the matter of Munna Pandey v. State of Bihar, held that Section 162 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) does not affect the power of the Court to look into documents or put questions to witnesses suo motu to contradict them.
The Kerala High Court in the matter of Vishnu K.B. v. State of Kerala & Anr., held that a notarized affidavit signed by the complainants could not be taken in isolation by the Court so as to discharge the accused.
The Supreme Court (SC) has recently disapproved of an order of the Orissa High Court which restricted the bail to a particular time period in the matter of Ranjit Digal v. State of Odisha.
The Supreme Court (SC) in the matter of Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi V. State of Gujarat has held that, when evidence against all the accused individuals is identical the benefit of acquittal given to one accused has to be extended to the other accused also, even if they haven’t approached the Court.
The Supreme Court (SC), has emphasized upon the critical importance of ensuring that a dying declaration is trustworthy and reliable, and inspires confidence when it is considered the sole basis for a criminal conviction in the matter of Phulel Singh v. State of Haryana.
The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Pundeer v. State of NCT of Delhi, has held that an accused has a right to be released on default bail where the prosecution files a preliminary or incomplete chargesheet within the statutory period.
The bench of Justice Subash Vidyarthi observed that an illegally secured telephonic conversation between two accused would be admissible as evidence. The Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court gave this observation in the matter of Mahant Prasad Ram Tripathi v. State of UP Thru. C.B.I. / A.C.B., Lucknow and Another.
The Supreme Court (SC) reinforced the fundamental procedural character of the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 (CrPC) and emphasized that minor technical flaws and irregularities should never obstruct the quest for substantial justice in the matter of Bijoy Shankar Mishra v. State of Jharkhand.
The Kerala High Court has laid down that a trust, whether it is a public, private, or charitable entity, is a Juristic Person and can be made liable for the offence of dishonor of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act).
The Kerela High Court (HC) has held that DNA test cannot be carried out solely based on the presence of a disagreement or uncertainty regarding paternity in the matter of Sujith Kumar S v. Vinaya V S.
In the matter of Rameshji Amarsingh Thakor v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court (SC) has emphasized upon the crucial significance of eyewitness testimonies in legal proceedings involving criminal cases.
Justice S Rachaiah observed that the State cannot exercise the jurisdiction which is meant for victims under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC). Karnataka High Court gave this observation in the case of State of Karnataka v. Malleshnaika.
Justice Dinesh Kumar Paliwal observed that the absence of allegations of annoyance and alleged stated words to be obscene words cannot attract the charge under Section 294 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The Madhya Pradesh High Court was hearing the matter of Prafulla Kumar Jaiswal v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.
The Supreme Court (SC) has stated that any confession made by a person, before his arrest and prior to him being accused of any offence would be directly hit by Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) and there is no possibility of applying the exception under Section 27 in the case Rajesh v. State of MP.
The Supreme Court (SC) has conveyed its resentment over being compelled to acquit three individuals accused of murder and kidnapping due to significant deficiencies in the police investigation in the case of Rajesh v. State of MP.
The Karnataka High Court has ordered that filing a suit for property partition after a lapse of 90 years of passing a final decree is not maintainable if the possession has not been delivered as per the preliminary and final decrees in the matter of P Ramaprasad v. Thyagaraj R & Others.
The Allahabad High Court in the matter of India Oil Corporation Ltd. & Anr v. The Commercial Court & Anr., held that objection cannot be raised under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) in proceedings for the execution of arbitral award.
The Delhi High Court in the matter of Sanghi Bros (Indore) Pvt. Ltd. v. Kamlendra Singh, held that sale of property to a third party makes it inequitable to grant and enforce the specific performance decree.
The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that, when time is not fixed for specific performance of a contract, then the limitation period for a specific performance suit will run from the date on which the plaintiff had notice of refusal on part of the defendant to perform the contract to determine the period of limitation in the matter of A. Valliammai V. K.P. Murali.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri observed that pledgee’s right to sell pledged shares would be subservient to the pledgor’s right to redeem. Delhi High Court gave this observation in the case of DLF Limited v. PNB Housing Finance Limited.
Recently the Supreme Court in the matter of Keshav Sood v. Kirti Pradeep Sood held that the principle of res judicata cannot be invoked for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
The Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. M/S National Building Construction India Ltd., held that the service contemplated under Order V Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), involves service of summons along with the copy of the plaint.
Justice Aniruddha Bose and Justice Vikram Nath heard the admissibility of an unregistered lease deed as evidence. Supreme Court gave its observation in the case of M/S Paul Rubber Industries Private Limited v. Amit Chand Mitra & Anr.
The Supreme Court (SC) in the matter of Suresh Lataruji Ramteke v. Sau. Sumanbai Pandurang Petkar stated that High Courts, while exercising their jurisdiction of Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) should ordinarily frame substantial questions at the stage of admission.
The bench of Justice Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava observed that subsequent order on order for remand does not take away the right to appeal against it. The Allahabad High Court gave this observation in the matter of Smt. Yasmeen Zia v. Smt. Haneefa Khursheed And 2 Others.
The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Mohd. Irshad & Anr. v. Nadeem, held that mere second marriage of the father, after his first wife’s death, doesn’t disqualify him from being the natural guardian of his child.
The Supreme Court (SC) in the matter of Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun has affirmed that a child born out of a void or voidable marriage has the right to claim a share in their parents’ share of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property under the Mitakshara law. However, it was emphasized that such a child cannot automatically be considered a coparcener in the HUF by birth.
The Gujarat High Court in the matter of Umaben Jayantbhai Shah D/O Late Ramanlal N. Shah v. NA, held that the alternate place of jurisdiction under Section 371 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA) can be invoked only if the petitioner demonstrates that the deceased had no permanent place of residence.
The High Court of Delhi in the matter of National Restaurant Association of India and Anr. v. Commissioner of Police and Anr., passed an interim order directing the members of the Federation of Hotel and Restaurant Association of India (FHRAI) to use the term staff contribution in place of ‘service charge’ and cap it at 10% of the total bill amount.
Justice Prathiba M Singh observed Theobroma is free to expand its outlets under the mark/name ‘THEOBROMA’ across the country. However, Theos shall be restrained to the Delhi-NCR region. Delhi High Court gave this observation in the case of THEOS Food Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. v. THEOBROMA Food Pvt. Ltd.
The division bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Ahsanuddin Amanullah dismissed an appeal preferred by Axis Bank against condonation of delay in a Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process by the State Bank of India (SBI). The Supreme Court gave this observation in the matter of Axis Bank Ltd. v. Naren Seth.
The Supreme Court (SC), underscored the significance of requiring convincing evidence for establishing the common object in cases pertaining to Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in the matter of Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana.
Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that an attesting witness of a sale deed cannot be held for cheating Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) if he was only attesting witness. The Karnataka High Court gave this observation in the case of Rajesh Totaganti v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mittal acquitted a man convicted under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1881 (NDPS Act). The Supreme Court gave this observation in the case of Yusuf @ Asif v. State.
The Supreme Court’s (SC) recent ruling in the matter of Naresh @ Nehru v. State of Haryana emphasized the necessity for eyewitness testimony to possess an exceptionally high level of credibility and reliability.
The Supreme Court (SC) has overturned the conviction and death sentence of a man charged with kidnapping, raping, and murdering a three-month-old infant in the matter of Naveen @ Ajay v. State of Madhya Pradesh.
The Kerala High Court in the case of Kuthiralamuttam Saji v. State of Kerala, has held that power to commit a case to the Sessions Court after commencement of inquiry/ trial under Section 323 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) may be invoked by the Magistrate only after recording its reasons by way of a speaking order.
The Supreme Court in the case of Bhisham Lal Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., held that a second petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) would not be maintainable on grounds that were available for challenge at the time of filing of the first petition.
The Supreme Court (SC) after prolonged litigation, finally granted relief to the owner of the suit property (Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf) in favour of whom the decree was already granted back in 2002 in the matter of Mumtaz Yarud Dowla Wakf V. M/S Badam Balakrishna Hotel Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.
The Supreme Court (SC) has held that the limitation period for initiating a specific performance suit, in accordance with Article 54 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, is 3 years. z This period begins either from the date when performance was originally set to take place or if no specific date was decided for performance, it commences when the plaintiff becomes aware that the performance has been declined in the matter of Sabbir (Dead) Through LRS v. Anjuman (Since Deceased) Through LRS.
The Kerala High Court (HC), while dismissing a rent control revision petition, affirmed that seeking legal advice after the expiry of limitation period cannot be considered a valid reason for extending the deadline to file an appeal in the matter of Mallika v. Sree Mutharamman Temple Trust, Nedumangad.
The High Court of Gujarat in the matter of InstaKart Services v. Megastone Logiparks Pvt Ltd. has held that in the presence of a conflicting exclusive jurisdiction clause, the location of arbitration. is considered the venue rather than the seat arbitration. Arbitration proceedings involve the “seat” and the “venue.” The venue refers to where in physical space an arbitration is held, while the seat concerns what jurisdiction’s laws apply.
The Allahabad High Court in the matter of M/S Bajrang Trading Company v. Commissioner Commercial Tax & Anr., has held that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), the allegations of violations of law cannot be dealt with in extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court unless the inherent lack of jurisdiction is claimed.
The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Maa Vindhya Stone Crusher Company v. State of U.P. and Anr., has held that in a civilized society, principles of natural justice ought to be followed in order to maintain rule of law.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Nanhe v. State of UP, held that the Doctrine of Transfer of Malice provides that where there is mens rea (guilty mind) of committing an offence, it can be transferred to another.
The High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Mrigraj Gautam @ Rippu v. State of U.P and Ors., held that the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 was never meant to criminalize consensual romantic relationships between the adolescents.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Munshi Sah v. The State of Bihar & Anr., held that the question of grant of bail to a co-accused person cannot made dependent upon surrender of another accused who is described as the main accused person in the case.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka has held that the Sessions Court or High Court that would have the power to grant transit anticipatory bail, even when the First Information Report (FIR) has not been filed within its territorial jurisdiction but in a different State.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Sajeev v. State of Kerala, has laid down the essential constituents for proving a case of criminal conspiracy.
the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Khalid Khan and Anr v. State of UP and Anr, has held that under the provisions of Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) a Judicial Magistrate has the discretion to direct a preliminary inquiry before ordering for the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) in cases where no cognizable offence is made out.
The Delhi High Court in the matter of Vineet Surelia v. The State of NCT of Delhi, has held that an accused, once granted bail, is always expected to not only join the investigation but also participate in it.
The Delhi High Court in the matter of Rashmee Kansal v. The State and Anr., has held that under the provisions of Section 326B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), an offence is made out only if a person throws or attempts to throw acid on another person, and not any other liquid or substance.
The Supreme Court (SC) has recently observed that the absence of an explanation for the injuries inflicted on the accused suggests that the prosecution may have hidden the true nature of the incident in the matter of Parshuram v. State of MP.
the Supreme Court in the matter of Parshuram v. State of MP, held that it is not necessary that every person constituting an unlawful assembly must play an active role in convicting him with the aid of Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Supreme Court (SC) has held that there is no strict requirement that a convicted individual must serve a specific duration of their sentence before they can apply to have it suspended in the matter of Vishnubhai Ganpatbhai Patel and another v. State of Gujarat.
The Delhi High Court in the matter of Shantanu v. The State held that for the offence of penetrative sexual assault under the provisions of Section 3(c) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), a simple act of touch cannot be considered as manipulation.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India & Ors. v. Dilip Paul, held that the allegations of sexual harassment should be considered within the broader context of the case and should not be judged merely on the basis of a procedural violation.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Manjunath v. State of Karnataka recognized the inherent value of dying declaration and held that examination of a person who recorded dying declaration is essential.
The Supreme Court in the matter of State of Karnataka v. T.Naseer, restated that a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA) for the purpose of proving electronic evidence can be produced at any stage of the trial.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay v. Union of India described the principles relevant for examining the admissibility of secondary evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
The Delhi High Court held that the learned Magistrate is only required to examine whether the basic ingredients of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NIA) have been prima facie made out by the complainant and supported by the pre-summoning evidence led on behalf of the complainant. The aforesaid observation was made in the matter of Northern India Paint Colour & Varnish Co. LLP v. Sushil Chaudhary.
The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Allama Zamir Naqvi Alias Tahir In Fir Zameen Naqvi Alias Tahir v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another, has held that the provision related to anticipatory bail amended by the Criminal Procedure Code (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2018 is also applicable on offences committed before 2018.
The Supreme Court (SC) has held that a plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in the matter of Kum. Geetha, D/O Late Krishna & Ors v. Nanjundaswamy & Ors.
The Supreme Court (SC) has expressed its concern over the protracted time it takes to enforce decrees in court in accordance with Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) in the matter of Pradeep Mehra v. Harijivan J. Jethwa.
The Karnataka High Court in the matter of T Savitha & Anr. v. B P Muniraju & Ors., has held that the Trial Court can frame an additional issue at any time before passing a decree under the provisions of Rule 5 of Order 14 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).
The Supreme Court in the matter of Munishamappa v. N. Rama Reddy and others, was hearing the legality of an agreement to sell under Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Shakeel Ahmed v. Syed Akhlaq Hussain, has held that in cases of immovable properties no title could be transferred on the basis of an Agreement to Sell or on the basis of a General Power of Attorney.
The High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Smt. Adity Rastogi v. Anubhav Verma, has observed that the term residing used in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is not defined under this Act, and so a casual visit to a place will not grant jurisdiction to the Court in that area to adjudicate upon divorce proceedings.
The Delhi High Courtin the matter of Chetram Mali v. Karishma Saini has held that provisions contained in Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) is gender neutral.
The Gujarat High Court in the matter of State of Gujarat v. Prakash @ Piddu MithuBhai Mulani & Ors. has held that a single injury resulting in death can be categorized as murder under the provisions of clause 3 Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The High Court of Chhattisgarh in the case of Ku. Pooja Chopra & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh has held that if a lover commits suicide due to failure in a romantic relationship, his partner cannot per se be held to have abetted the commission of the suicide.
The High Court of Karnataka in the matter of Anupam Singh Tomar v. State by Kothanur Police & Anr., has held that in situations of non-compliance with the visitation rights, a father attempting to visit daughter does not amount to a House Trespass.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Gohar Mohammed v. Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation & Ors., has directed the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to prepare a scheme with suggestions for implementation of the amended Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MV Act) and the Central Motor Vehicles Rules.
Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma have observed that while granting anticipatory bail to the accused husband under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), a condition that the husband shall take his wife to his house and maintain and honor her, cannot be imposed. The Supreme Court gave this judgment in the case of Kunal Choudhary v. The State of Jharkhand.
The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the matter of Vundi Sankar Vijaya Bhaskaram v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, has held that Magistrate has the discretion in forwarding the complaint to the police as it disclosed various cognizable offences, and the police can thoroughly investigate the matter.
The High Court of Kerala in the matter of Vishnu Sajanan v. State of Kerala, has held that the conditions imposed on an accused when he was released on default bail under Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) was violative of his fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India (COI).
Justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and Gurbir Singh have observed that where sufficient evidence is available to corroborate the prosecution version, the statement of the complainant, despite his turning hostile during crossexamination can still be relied upon. The Punjab and Haryana High Court gave this judgment in the case of Shokeen v. State of Haryana.
Justice M Nagaprasanna has observed that the plea of parity raised by an accused in seeking bail is not binding on the court and individual offences and individual overt acts are to be assessed and not to simply follow orders of other accused who are enlarged on bail and on parity grant the same. The Karnataka High Court gave this judgment in the case of Almas Pasha and the State of Karnataka.
The Bombay High Court in the matter of Dr. Sublendu Prakash Diwakar v. State of Maharashtra, has held that as per the provisions of Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), at the stage of framing of charges an accused can seek production of potentially exculpatory documents voluntarily submitted to investigating officer even if he has the documents in his possession.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Chhote Lal v. Rohtash, has held that in cases where the appellant or the complainant is an interested sole eyewitness, his testimony has to be examined with great caution.
JusticeVivek Singh Thakur has observed that Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (SRA)does not automatically bar a suit for mere declaration of title, even if the plaintiffs could have sought additional consequential relief. The Himachal Pradesh High Court gave this judgment in the case of Sudhakar Sharma & others v.Nandini Mishra & others.
The Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Munga Devi and Ors. v. Kamla Devi, has held that an order passed on an application under Order 22 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) is not appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC. Instead, it is considered a revisable order.
The Supreme Court in the matter of M/S North Eastern Chemicals Industries Ltd.& Anr. v. M/S Ashok Paper Mill Ltd. & Anr., has held that an appeal must be filed within a reasonable time when no limitation period has been prescribed for filing an appeal.
The Bombay High Court in the matter of Shreem Electric Limited v. Transformers and Rectifiers India Ltd. and Ors., has held that the trial court cannot return a plaint merely on the ground that the defendant’s suit is pending in another court.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Benny Dsouza v. Melwin Dsouza, has stated that if the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing, it can only be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits.
The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Smt. Monika Yadav v. Aakash Singh & Ors., has held that an appeal against the order of a Civil Judge rejecting a plea for the issuance of a succession certificate would lie before the District Judge under Section 388(2) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (ISA).
The High Court of Delhi in the matter of Manu Gupta v. Sujata Sharma & Ors., has held that the Hindu Law does not limit the right of a woman to be a Karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF).
The High Court of Rajasthan in the matter of Smt. Ashwani Sharad Pendese & Anr. v. Registrar of Hindu Marriage & Anr. has stated that the denial of registration of a marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA) merely on the ground that one or both of them are foreign nationals is not justified.
The Patna High Court in the matter of Alok Bharti v. Jyoti Raj, has held that the leveling of false allegations by one spouse to the other having alleged illicit relations with different persons outside the wedlock amounted to mental cruelty.
The Delhi High Court in the matter of Smaaash Leisure Ltd v. Ambience Commercial Developers Pvt. Ltd., has held that a party cannot be compelled to appoint an arbitrator from a narrow panel consisting merely of three persons.
The Delhi High Court in the matter of Sanket Bhadresh Modi v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., has held that under the provisions of Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India, 1950 (C0I), an accused cannot be coerced to reveal or disclose the passwords or any other similar details of the digital devices during investigation.
The Calcutta High Court in the matter of Mahuya Chakraborty v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., has held that the right of a person to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950(COI) cannot be deprived merely because he was convicted.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. & Ors. v. Mb Power (Madhya Pradesh) Limited & Ors., has held that under the provisions of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI), the High Court must exercise its discretionary power with great caution.
The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Sumit & Anr v. State of UP & Ors., has held that cognizance of the offence under Section 174 A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) can be taken by a Court only based on a written complaint of the court which had initiated proceedings, and the Police have no power to lodge a First Information Report (FIR) in such cases.
The Kerala High Court in the matter of Renjith Raj v. State has held that in cases of death involving use of motor vehicles, the Courts should decide whether an alternative charge for an offence under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is also to be added in addition to the charge under Section 304 of IPC.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court in the matter of Harinder Pal Singh @ Hinda v. State of Punjab & Anr., has summoned the ADGP (Prison) as well as the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons as false affidavit has been filed denying the incident of assault on jail inmate.
The Bombay High Court in the matter of Mohammed Ejaj Shaikh Ismail v. State of Maharashtra, has held that annoying acts wouldn’t constitute an offence under the provisions of Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Supreme Court in the matter of Neeraj Sharma v. The State of Chhattisgarh has held that for an act of kidnapping or abduction, prosecution must prove the demand of ransom, coupled with the threat to life of a person who has been kidnapped or abducted.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Mariam Fasihuddin & Anr. v. State by Adugodi Police Station & Anr., has held that in order to attract the provisions of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), the prosecution has to not only prove that the accused has cheated someone but also that by doing so, he has dishonestly induced the person who is cheated to deliver property.
The Bombay High Court in the matter of Sandesh Madhukar Salunkhe v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr., has held that commenting on wife’s cooking skills is not cruelty within the meaning of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
The Chhattisgarh High Court in the matter of Suman Sharma & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., has held that the complaint filed by the second wife against her husband and in laws under the provisions of Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) is not maintainable.
The Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Md. Reyazul & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand, has held that Section 100(5) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) does not require the witnesses of search and seizure to attend the court as a witness unless specially summoned by the court.
The Jharkhand High Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand and Anr., has held that once the marital relationship is disproved, there cannot be any order of maintenance under the provisions of Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
The Supreme Court in the matter of Shadakshari v. State of Karnataka & Anr., has held that Section 197 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) is restricted to only those acts or omissions which are done by public servants in the discharge of official duties.
The Rajasthan High Court in the matter of Laxman Singh Gurjar v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & 2 Ors. has held that a writ petition generally does not lie against the charge-sheet unless it is established that the same had been issued by an authority not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.
The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Diwakar Singh v. State of U.P, has held that as per the provisions of Section 243(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), the Magistrate cannot compel reappearances of prosecution witnesses already examined unless the Magistrate is satisfied that it is necessary to meet the ends of justice.
The High Court of Allahabad in the matter of Anupam Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home & Anr., has elucidated the difference between the scope of Sections 311 and 233 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC).
The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurdev Singh Bhalla v. State of Punjab & Ors., has upheld an application under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) filed against the police officials accused of corruption.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod v. State of Gujarat & Anr., has held that power to record additional evidence under Section 391 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State Rep. by the Inspector of Police, restated the conditions for the purpose of invoking the provisions of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
The Calcutta High Court in the matter of Minati Bhadra & Ors. v. Dilip Kr. Bhadra & Ors., have held that when documentary evidence is available the oral testimony of witness is not sufficient to rebut its probative value.
The Bombay High Court in the matter of Mrs. Zeba Mohasin Pathan @ Zeba Easak Pathan & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra has held that a complaint filed under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) by a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law is maintainable.
The Allahabad High Court in the matter of Hemsingh @ Tinchu v. Smt. Bhawna has held that once cruelty is found to be committed, the cause of action to seek divorce does arise.
The Patna High Court in the matter of Urmila Devi Jain & Ors v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., has held that as per the provisions of Section 31 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (ICA) a sale agreement with a contingency clause cannot be enforced unless that contingency is fulfilled.
The Delhi High Court in the matter of Neetu Grover v. Union of India & Ors., has upheld the validity of Section 5(v) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of Ajay Kumar Jain and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., has held that in Hindu Law the marriage is not considered as a valid marriage unless and until the saptapadi is performed.
The Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Gounder & Ors. V. M. Sengodan & Ors., has held that the children born out of void and voidable marriage shall be considered as legitimate and would be treated as successors in the property of common ancestors.
