Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable.”
“A judicial system has less than sufficient resources to afford justice without unreasonable delay to those having genuine grievances.”
The order dated 16-4-2021 passed by the NCLT, Mumbai indicated that the prohibition during CIRP is with respect to institution and continuation of suits only against Prince SWR System (P) Ltd and not against the Company’s director, i.e., the applicant.
The wife had alleged that she married the Appellant-husband because he was an Eye Surgeon, but he turned out to be an Optometrist.
“While liberty and dignity of an individual must be held high, however, no one can be permitted to subvert and cause devolution in the process of justice.”
The Court termed the 81-year-old habitual litigant as a “cancer for the judicial system, with a depraved mindset against women”, and imposed exemplary costs of Rs 1 Lakhs.
While allowing the revisional application, Calcutta High Court quashed the impugned proceeding on the ground of lack of substantial evidence to prima facie substantiate the offenses against the wife.
The Calcutta High Court criticized the trial court for solely relying on party’s submissions and not calling for injury report.
Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that “Only a false promise to marry made with an intention to deceive a woman would vitiate the woman’s consent being obtained under misconception of fact, but mere breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise.”
Gujarat High Court: The Division Bench of Vineet Kothari and B.N. Karia, JJ., took up a petition which dealt with the parties
Madras High Court: R. Pongiappan, J., addressed the Criminal Original Petition seeking to quash the First Information Report of first respondent police as
Uttaranchal High Court: Lok Pal Singh, J., addressed an application that sought to quash criminal proceedings under Sections 420, 468, 471 of
Karnataka High Court: Mohammad Nawaz, J., while allowing the petition quashed the entire proceedings. This instant petition was filed under Section 482
Gauhati High Court: Rumi Kumari Phukan, J., allowed and further disposed of the petition in view of the matter being settled outside
Uttaranchal High Court: The Bench of Manoj K. Tiwari, J. disposed of a compounding application in favour of the parties as they
Delhi High Court: The Bench of R.K. Gauba, J. dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC holding it to be an abuse
Uttaranchal High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Manoj K. Tiwari, J. allowed a compounding application as the offence involved was
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of P.N. Deshmukh and Swapna Joshi, JJ. partly allowed an application filed under Section 482
Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J., dismissed a petition filed under Section 561-A of
Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of K.S Mudagal, J. slammed a daughter-in-law for filing a false case of dowry