Tis Hazari Court
Case BriefsDistrict Court

   

West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi: In a case wherein it is alleged that the accused committed the offence punishable under Section 509 of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), as the accused started hurling abuses in a filthy language and started to quarrel with the complainant, Devanshu Sajlan, J., held that the court cannot presume that the filthy/ abusive language used amounted to insulting the modesty of the complainant and the prosecution was required to prove the same.

An FIR was registered under Section 509 IPC, and post investigation on finding a prima facie case against accused, notice under section 509 IPC was served in terms of section 251 Criminal Procedure Code.

The Court remarked that even if the version of the prosecution is believed to be true, it appears that there was a quarrel between the parties related to leakage of water, which led to use of alleged abusive language by the accused. The alleged abusive language appears to have been made in the context of a quarrel/ fight and there is no evidence on record that the said language was used with any sexual overtones.

Placing reliance on Abhijeet J.K. v. State of Kerala, 2020 SCC OnLine Ker 703 the gravamen of Section 509 IPC is the intent to ‘insult the modesty’ of a woman. It is a settled position of law that there is distinction between an act of merely insulting a woman and an act of insulting the modesty of a woman. In order to attract section 509 IPC, merely insulting a woman is not sufficient and insult to the modesty of a woman is required to have been done.

The term ‘modesty’ was defined by Supreme Court in Raju Pandurang Mahale v. State of Maharashtra, (2004) 4 SCC 371, as the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex, i.e., modesty is a virtue which attaches to a female owing to her sex. Thus, the Court noted that the ultimate test for ascertaining whether modesty has been outraged is whether the action of the offender is such as could be perceived as one which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a woman, keeping in mind that the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex.

Keeping in view, that in criminal law, the burden of proof on the prosecution is that of beyond reasonable doubt, in the present case, the prosecution has failed to prove or bring on record the nature of alleged abuses hurled at the complainant as the only allegation made is that when she visited the accused to complain about leakage of water from AC, “the accused started abusing her in very filthy language and started quarrelling with her, which is not sufficient.

Relying on the definition of “verbal abuse” given in Black’s Law Dictionary (9th edn.), it does not include ‘insults’ within its meaning and cannot be equated with insult to modesty of a woman. The Court observed that it cannot presume that the filthy/ abusive language used amounted to insulting the modesty of the complainant especially when the prosecution has failed to bring on record the nature and wording of insults which were hurled towards the complainant.

The Court held that the prosecution was required to prove the offence under Section 509 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, which the prosecution has failed to do as Apart from the allegation of usage of abusive/ filthy language, there is nothing specific on record which points towards the guilt of the accused.

[State v. Ankit Shukla, 2022 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 45, decided on 30-09-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case:

Vijay Dagar, Ld. APP, Advocate, for the State;

Aditya Kale, Ld., Advocate, Counsel for the accused.


*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.

Case BriefsDistrict Court

   

City Civil and Sessions Court, Bombay: In an application filed by Dr. P V Varavara Rao ‘applicant-accused’ seeking permission to travel Hyderabad and to stay there for a period of 3 months for undergoing cataract surgery at Hyderabad, Rajesh J. Katariya, J. refuses to allow the application because if the applicant is permitted to go and stay at Hyderabad for three months, the framing of charge would get prolonged.

The major grounds on which application is filed is that the medical expenses for the said surgery are at higher side and he can get treatment free of charge at Hyderabad being a pensioner of Telangana Government.

Counsel for applicant submitted that applicant is granted permanent medical bail by the Supreme Court however, Counsel for State submitted that the Supreme while granting medical bail imposed condition to the applicant that he shall not leave the area of Gr. Mumbai without the express permission of the Trial Court.

The Court while the rejecting the prayer noted that on perusal of the order passed by the Supreme Court it is clear that the Court concerned is required to frame charges against the accused and decide pending discharge application simultaneously within three months from the order dated 18-08-2022, which will get delayed if the application is allowed.

[Varavara Rao v. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Bom) 11, decided on 23-09-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Niraj Yadav, Advocate, for the Applicant/Accused no. 6;

SPP Mr. Prakash Shetty, Advocate, for the NIA.


*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.

Meghalaya High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

   

Meghalaya High Court: The Division Bench of Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. and W. Diengdoh, J. was alarmed by the present criminal appeal due to the nature of the case , and sets aside the conviction of the appellant for being a person of unsound mind and wasconvicted in a triple murder case.

The appellant who was represented by the Legal Aid Counsel was convicted under Section 302 of Penal Code, 1860 for triple murder but sentenced only to 14 years' imprisonment. Public Prosecutor was requested to look into the matter and assist the Court. Several documents which were on record revealed that the trial could not have taken place as there was a firm medical opinion that the appellant herein was unfit to stand trial and required treatment. Despite such medical status report of 07-03-2012 issued by the Senior Medical and Health Officer, Psychiatrist, Meghalaya Institute of Mental Health and Neurological Sciences, Shillong being forwarded to the trial court by the Superintendent of District Jail, Shillong under cover of a letter dated 14-03-2012, the trial court proceeded to record the statement of the appellant without referring to his mental condition or the medical opinion forwarded to the Court.

The impugned order had been passed by a Judge in a District Council Court authorised by the Governor to take up heinous offences involving harsh punishment as long as the matter was between a tribal and another. The Court stated that fundamental rules of justice need to be followed, particularly in course of a criminal trial and high authorities instruct that even if a confession is made by an accused of sound mind, the conviction should not be founded simply on the admission; but should be seen as corroborative material if the evidence otherwise indicates the high likelihood of the commission of the offence by the accused.

The Court noted that in this case despite the trial court being informed of the mental condition of the appellant herein, the trial court proceeded to pass the order of conviction. The Court opined that merely because the Sixth Schedule to the Constitution does not require the letter of the Criminal Procedure Code to be adhered to does not imply that common sense and all fundamental cannons of justice have to be thrown to the wind by the District Council Court, surprisingly authorised to deal with such a serious matter when it is obvious that the Judge concerned lacks basic sense of justice and is completely bereft of domain knowledge on the subject.

Since the trial in this case could not have been undertaken in the wake of the medical report, the Court set aside the entire process and the judgment of conviction and sentence. The matter was remanded to the trial court to be dealt with in accordance with law, particularly keeping in mind the requirements of Section 329 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.

The Court further emphasized on the fact that it is the duty of the State to ensure that an accused gets adequate legal assistance to set up his defence even if the accused is not able to afford a lawyer to represent him. The State Legal Services Authority was directed to ensure that appointments as legal aid counsel were not made on extraneous considerations or merely because an application has been made therefor. The Court also noted that

Till such time that the legal education system is strengthened and burgeoning cattle-shed law colleges are arrested from unleashing completely untrained personnel to be qualified to obtain license for practice, even as the statutory watchdog plays the fiddle, a strict vigil must be maintained on the appointment of legal aid counsel so that the colossal disservice that was done to the appellant in this case, instead of rendering any assistance, is not repeated.”

[Bremingstar Mylliem v. State of Meghalaya, 2022 SCC OnLine Megh 431, decided on 23-08-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

A. Khan, Legal Aid Counsel, Advocate, for the Appellant;

K. Khan, PP with R. Gurung, GA, Advocates, for the Respondent.


*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Saket Court
Case BriefsDistrict Court

Saket Court (South), Delhi: In a case of alleged leak of details of FIR containing sensitive information, Shilpi Singh J., issued notice to Station House Officer ‘SHO’ to explain how Hindustan Times came in the knowledge of the present FIR, the kinds of complaint in which the complaint is treated as sensitive information.

An FIR was directed to be registered on the orders of the Sessions Court dated 19-04-2022, after an application was moved by the complainant. The complainant states that he has still not received any information regarding registration of FIR but on 29-07-2022 an article was published in Hindustan Times, Hindi Editorial on the first page about the allegations of the complainant in the FIR.

Counsel for complainant submitted that once the FIR is registered it is uploaded on CCTNS which takes some time and to access the FIR, a person requires the name of the complainant, FIR No. and date of registration. He further submitted that the only person in knowledge of such details would be either DO or IO.

Thus, it was alleged that FIR has been deliberately leaked to the media as the complainant is a high-profile person and the said facts would result in tarnishing his image.

The Court noting that FIR was registered on 22-07-2022 and perusing the facts and allegations levelled, issued notice to concerned SHO with direction to explain how Hindustan Times came in the knowledge of the present FIR, the kinds of complaint in which the complaint is treated as sensitive information and discretion be exercised by the SHO to not share the same.

The Court further directed the counsel for complainant to show why such case fall under the sensitive information category.

The matter is next listed for further proceedings on 30-08-2022.

[Ashok Kumar Choudhary v. Jeena Joseph, 2022 SCC OnLine Dis Crt (Del) 30, decided on 03-08-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate, Advocate for the Complainant.


*Arunima Bose, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

High Court Round UpLegal RoundUpTribunals/Regulatory Bodies/Commissions Monthly Roundup

“For a contract to be enforceable, the restraint of trade clause must be reasonable.”

[Rajesh Kumar Gandhi v. Mukesh Dutt]


Read the interesting picks from the stories eported in first week of February.


Delhi High Court


Baazi v. WinZo| Trademark is used by a manufacturer or service provider to distinguish products from those of competitors: Here’s how Winzo appeared dishonest and unfair in adopting Baazi

Explaining the significance of a trademark, Asha Menon, J., observed that,

When people are satisfied with the products supplied by a manufacturer or service provider, they buy them on the basis of the trade mark and over time it becomes popular and well known. Thus, the use of a similar or identical trademark by a competitor in the same product would lead unwary customers to believe that it originates from the same source.

Read full report here…

Whether a ‘blade’ would be covered under S. 397 IPC as a deadly weapon? Del HC explains in view of settled position of law

Mukta Gupta, J., explained under what circumstances would Section 397 of penal Code, 1860 would be attracted.

Rae full report here…

Court under maintenance proceedings under S. 125 of CrPC, can usurp jurisdiction of Civil Courts? Del HC decides

Chandra Dhari Singh, J., decided a maintenance case wherein the marital status of the parties was the crux of the matter and expressed that,

“…there is no straight jacket formula for judging the validity of the marriage between the parties.”

Read full report here…


Kerala High Court


Is not taking treatment for mental illness to bring out a peaceful family atmosphere a form of cruelty and thus, a ground for divorce? Kerala HC answers

In an interesting case the Division Bench of A.Muhamed Mustaque and C.R. Sophy Thomas, JJ., held that not taking treatment for mental illness in order to bring out a peaceful and harmonious family atmosphere can also be counted as cruelty to the persons at the receiving end. Upholding the Family Court’s order granting divorce on the ground of cruelty, the Bench remarked,

“There is no merit in preserving intact a marriage, when the marital tie becomes injurious to the parties. When there is no rose, and only thorns left, and there is no scope for the plant to sprout again, there is no meaning in watering the same, knowing that it is dead forever.”

Read full report here…


Andhra Pradesh High Court


LGBTQ+ community’s right to reservation; Can a transgender claim to be appointed by reservation in spite of failure to secure minimum cut off marks in screening test? AP HC answers 

In a significant case wherein, a transgender had approached the Court seeking benefit of reservation for appointment in police department, M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J., denied to issue direction to the State in favour of the petitioner. The Bench, however, remarked,

“The State is unconscious of the directions issued by NALSA and failed to provide a specific column meant for gender identity for transgender in the proforma of application in the Notification dated 01.11.2018 and did not provide any reservation to transgenders, as they are socially and educationally backward and not in a position to compete with ordinary men and women.”

Read full report here…


National Company Law Tribunal


Operational Creditor is under obligation to recover money from its client and not agent: NCLT decides while dismissing a petition filed under S. 9 IBC

The Coram of H.V. Subba Rao (Judicial Member) and Chandra Bhan Singh (Technical Member) dismissed a petition filed under Section 9 of the IBC while noting that no operational debt existed under Section 5(8) and expressed that,

“Operational Creditor being the principal was always under obligation to recover the money from the client and not from his agent unless the agent failed to perform his duties.”

Read full report here…


Tis Hazari Court


For a contract to be enforceable, restraint of trade clause must be reasonable: Post-termination non-compete clauses are permissible in employment contracts under S. 27 of Contract Act? District Court explains

Holding that, post-termination non-compete clauses in employment contracts are “restraint of trade” and it is impermissible under Section 27 of the Act, Richika Tyagi, C.J-02, expressed that such agreements of restraint are vid because of being unfair and depriving an individual of his or her fundamental right to earn a living.

Read full report here…


Information Commissioner’ Office


Unsolicited marketing calls causing distress to people and disregard to their privacy rights: Would it lead to imposition of monetary penalty? Detailed decision of Information Commissioner’s Office

Andy Curry, Head of Investigations, on noting serious contravention of regulations 21 and 24 of the Privacy and Electronic Communication Regulations 2003 (PECR) has issued Home2sense Limited with a monetary penalty under Section 55A of the Data Protection Act, 1998.

“Home2sense’s dismissive and troubling response, coupled with its failure to disclose any details of its CDRs or any other information which might assist the Commissioner’s investigation shows, in the Commissioner’s view, a complete disregard for the privacy rights of the individuals whom it sought to contact.”

Read full report here…

Kerala High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of A.Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas held that the District Court cannot entertain petition to appoint guardian of the person of the minor child, however power to appoint guardian of the property of the minor is well within the jurisdiction of the District Court. The Bench clarified, the fact that a court cannot appoint a guardian of the person, is no bar for appointing a guardian of the property.

The original petition was filed by the mother of minor girl Nivedya, against the respondent, who was the father of the minor and husband of the petitioner for declaring her as the guardian of the person and property of the minor. Plaint schedule property was owned by the maternal grandmother of the minor child, and it was settled in her favour as per a settlement deed. Due to strained marital relationship, the couple were living separately and the minor was staying with her mother.

The respondent-husband had challenged the jurisdiction of the Family Court on the ground that the District Court did not has any jurisdiction, as the entire right of the District Court, by virtue of the Guardian & Wards Act, has been taken over by the Family Court as per Section 7 (1) explanation (g) of the Family Courts Act, 1984.

The District Court, after hearing the rival contentions, found that, when custody of the property of a minor is involved, the jurisdiction is with the District Court and so, that court has jurisdiction to entertain that O.P. It was this finding of the District Court which was being challenged by the instant appeal.

The appellant-respondent submitted that prior to their divorce, his mother executed a settlement deed in favour of his minor child, reserving life interest for the appellant-respondent in the property and the house situated therein. Moreover, he had filed a petition before Family Court for getting custody of the minor child and it was still pending.

The Bench observed that Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, lays down that a family Court shall have, and exercise all jurisdiction exercisable by any District Court or any subordinate civil Court under any law in respect of suits and proceedings of the nature referred to in the Explanation which, inter alia, includes, according to clause (g), a suit or proceeding in relation to the guardianship of the person or the custody of, or access to, any minor. Section 8 of the Act specifically says that where a family Court has been established for any area, no District Court or any subordinate civil Court referred to, shall, in relation to such area, have or exercise any jurisdiction in respect of such suits or proceedings referred to, in the Explanation which includes clause (g). However, considering the above provision, the Bench stated,

“But, when the question involved relates to appointment of guardian in respect of the property of minor, the Family Court has no jurisdiction, as that dispute is not coming under explanation (g) to Section 7(1)”.

Hence, the Bench held that since the Family Court has no jurisdiction to entertain a petition for guardianship of the property of the minor, no doubt, the jurisdictional District Court has to entertain that petition. Further, Section 7 of the Guardian & Wards Act, 1980 empowers the jurisdictional District Court to appoint a guardian of the person or property or both of a minor or to declare a person to be such a guardian, if the court is satisfied that, it is for the welfare of the minor. So, as far as the dispute between parties to an erstwhile marriage regarding guardianship of the person, or the custody of, or access to their minor child, the Bench held that the jurisdiction of the District Court is taken away by the Family Court.

Consequently, with regard to the impugned proceedings of the District Court, the Bench held that there was not illegality or impropriety to warrant the Court’s interference and the District Court can proceed with the original petition for appointing guardian for the property of the minor, and not for the person of the minor. [K.S. Narayana Elayathu v. Sandhya, 2021 SCC OnLine Ker 6231, decided on 22-12-2021]


Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.


Appearance by:

For the Appellant: Paul K. Varghese, Advocate

For the Respondent: C.R. Reghunathan, Advocate

District CourtLegal RoundUp

As we are approaching the end of 2021, let’s dive in to know all the important decisions that District Courts of India delivered along with some decisions on very important settled laws.

Top Stories


ICICI – Videocon Scam

‘It APPEARS that Chanda Kochhar has misused her official position in sanctioning loans to Videocon Group’: Read Court’s order issuing process against the former MD & CEO of ICICI Bank

Sessions Court, Greater Bombay issued summons, being of the prima facie opinion that Chanda Kochhar, Former MD and CEO of ICICI Bank may have misused her official position in sanctioning loans to Videocon Group and got illegal gratification through her husband.

Read more…

MJ Akbar v. Priya Ramani | #MeToo

Woman has a right to put her grievance at any platform of her choice even after decades || No defamation case against Priya Ramani

Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi in an essentially significant decision revolving around the #MeToo movement, acquitted Priya Ramani (accused) and held that no case under Section 500 of the Penal Code, 1860 was found against her.

Read more…

State v. Tarun Tejpal | #MeToo

Destruction of crucial evidence, calculated narrative, conduct not natural of rape victim, et al.: 22-pointer comprehensive analysis of the 527-pages judgment of Sessions Court acquitting rape-accused Tarun Tejpal

District and Sessions Court at Panaji,  after a trial which went on for 7 years 2 months and 25 days, Kshama M. Joshi, Additional Sessions Judge, Mapusa, acquitted Tarun Tejpal, former Editor-in-Chief of Tehelka, who was accused of committing rape on a journalist working with Tehelka. The court gave benefit of doubt to accused, noting major lapses in investigation and major contradictions/improvements in testimony of the prosecutirx. The incident is of 2013 which allegedly happened during the annual THiNK Fest of Tehelka organised in Goa.

Read more…

Toolkit Case

Freedom of speech includes ‘Right to seek a Global Audience’, Court draws distinction between dissenting opinion & seditious activities: Bail Granted to Disha Ravi || Detailed report

Law prescribes only such activities would be intended, or have intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence. ‘Violence’ seems to be the gravamen of the charge.

Read more…

Delhi Riots

Delhi Court held that Umar Khalid cannot be permitted to remain behind bars in the present case on the basis of such a sketchy material against him and added that he cannot be made incarcerate in jail for infinity merely on account of the fact that other persons who were part of the riotous mob were to be identified and arrested in the matter.

Read more…

“Court is not insensitive towards the mental agony and the financial loss suffered by the complainant due to this incident. However, the sensitivity or the emotions alone are not the factors to be taken into consideration by the court while deciding the fate of any accused. These cannot take place of evidence. There should be sufficient and legally admissible evidence on the basis of which charges can be framed against an accused, which is lacking in the instant case.”

Read more…


Consumer Protection

State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Odisha modified the compensation amount awarded to a Law Student in light of being subjected to ‘Deficiency of Service’ and ‘Unfair Trade by ‘Amazon’.

District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Hyderabad ordered More Megastore Retails Ltd. to payback Rs 3 (with interest) that were charged from the complainant as the cost of the carry bag with company’s name and logo printed on it. The Commission also ordered More Megastore pay a compensation of Rs 15,000 to the complainant.

Read more…

Retailers/shopkeepers charging for plastic/paper/cloth carry bags with their Brand logos printed on them for which the consumers have to shell out extra amount from their pocket is not only unfair trade practice but also undue profiteering at the expense of the common man.

Read more…

Defamation

Any dereliction, negligence on the part of the editor, publisher of the newspaper would cause severe damage to the safety of the public, harmony among communities in the society. Public peace and tranquillity is the prime issue to be maintained in the civilized society.

Read more…

Crypto frauds

KYC is the responsibility of the intermediary and cannot be left to the individuals be it institutional transfer or person to person trade, with the intermediary shying away from the responsibility to ensure legitimacy of the source of money and establishment of real identity of the parties.

Read more…

COVID-19

Sessions Court, Jammu and Kashmir denied anticipatory bail to the person accused of obstructing the vaccination drive and spreading rumours regarding the vaccination.

Read more…

“Opinions can never substitute facts and for creation of an offence, certain facts constituting the offence need to be disclosed and not the mere possibilities as has been done in the present matter.”

Read more…

Red Fort Violence

Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi granted bail to a person alleged of inciting violence at Singhu Border and Red Fort in respect to the Farm Laws.

Read more…

Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi granted bail to the applicant Boota Singh, accused of inciting violence and disturbing law and order at Red Fort during Republic Day protest against controversial farm laws.

Read more…

Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi granted bail to the applicant Maninder Singh, accused of severely attacking and assaulting policemen on duty with his sword near the main entrance of Red Fort during Republic Day protest against controversial farm laws.

Read more…

Tis Hazari Courts granted bail to an accused Lakhbir Singh in Republic Day Violence, while noting that he had already joined the investigations and produced his mobile phone and disclosed that it was the same mobile phone which was being used by him on 26th January for recording videos and further uploading the same on his Facebook page.

Read more…

Hate Speech

“Freedom of speech has to be an integral part of any democratic country as in ours. However, this freedom has its own limitations and reasonable restrictions.”

 “Every citizen has a right to express his thoughts but not in a manner to target a particular community and promoting enmity.”

Read more…

Sessions Court, Gurugram granted bail to the Ram bhagat identified as Jamia shooter in a hate speech case. However, considering the nature of the offence alleged, the Bench imposed certain restrictions on the accused directing him not to organize or attend or address any public gathering which is likely to promote disharmony or feeling of enmity, hatred or ill-will between religious/racial groups/community or any gathering which is prejudicial to the maintenance of religious harmony or likely to disturb the public tranquillity.

Read more…

Property Dispute

Out of love and affection, a person can also contribute in the sale amount on behalf of other person and unless said fact is challenged by the former, the other persons have no right to question it. The mentioning of names as vendees in the registered sale deed clearly demonstrates the intention of the persons at the time of execution of the said document to create a right in favour of such persons. Had there been any contrary intention, names of such persons would not have been mentioned in the said sale deed.

Read more…

Dishonour of Cheque

Saket District Court found the accused guilty of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where the accused had admitted signatures on the cheque and also failed to make the payment within 15 days of receipt of summons.

Read more…

Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, while noting the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 acquitted a person charged for offence punishable under Section 138 NI Act.

Read more…

Patiala House Courts, New Delhi acquitted the accused of offence under Section 138 (dishonour of cheque) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1885, holding that the accused successfully dislodged the statutory presumption.

Read more…

Saket Courts, New Delhi reiterated what is expected of an accused to rebut the statutory presumption against him in cases of cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Read more…

If the accused is able to raise a probable defence, which creates doubt about the existence of legally enforceable debt or liability, the onus shifts back to the complainant.

Read more…

Saket Courts, Delhi convicted the accused for an offence under Section 138 (dishonour of cheque) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. While delivering the judgment, the Court reiterated the well-settled position of law and discarded various defence taken by the accused.

Read more…

Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, resolved the dispute pertaining to Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in light of the 4 conditions laid down under the said Section.

Read more…

Dwarka Courts, Delhi on noting a very weak case of the complainant and not being able to produce sufficient evidence, dismissed his complaint filed for the dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Read more…

In light of the cheque being returned by the bank due to “Account Closed” Bhola Pandit, XX Addl. C.M.M, convicted an accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Read more…

Court of XX Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City: convicted a person who presented a cheque to repay a loan but the same was dishonoured due to insufficient funds.

Read more…

Divorce

Family Court, Pune addressed a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and granted the same noting the difference of opinion and incompatibility of petitioner’s temperament.

Read more…

Family Court, Pune granted a decree of divorce by mutual consent to a couple who due to difference of opinion and incompatibility of their temperament could not live together.

Read more…

Family Court, Ahmednagar allowed a petition granting a decree of divorce by mutual consent to the petitioners.

Read more…

Medical Negligence

Patiala House Courts while addressing a case of medical negligence expressed that d,octors can be summoned for negligence only if the negligence is gross or the doctors did not possess the requisite skill required for the treatment.

Read more…

Domestic Violence & Maintenance

Saket Courts, New Delhi, dismissed an appeal filed by the husband against the order of the trial court granting maintenance to the wife.

Read more…

Although the domestic violence is incident which happens within four walls of the house. No independent evidence can be expected.

Read more…

LXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, dismissed an appeal filed under Section 29 of the Domestic Violence Act finding that the petitioner wife had proved the factum of domestic violence.

Read more…

Coparcener

Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, discussed the legal position on a coparcener’s daughter also being a coparcener of the Hindu Undivided Property.

Read more…

Drink and Drive

“There has to be a zero-tolerance for drunken driving and such cases should be dealt with stern hands for flashing proper message in the society.”

 Read more…

Theft of Electricity

Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, decided a matter wherein a person was found guilty of direct theft of electricity.

Read more…

Termination of Services

Saket Courts, New Delhi, decided a matter wherein an employee claimed full back wages from the date he was terminated till the date of his superannuation.

Read more…

Condonation of Delay

“A litigant who takes liberty with court procedure should anticipate the necessary consequences.”

“…a stern message is required to be sent to the litigants who indulge in frivolous and vexatious litigation as such litigation not only clogs arteries of justice delivery system but also deprives genuine litigants of their fundamental right of speedy trial.”

Read more…

Failure to file Charge Sheet

District Court Complex, Rouse Avenue, allowed applications filed under Section 167(2) CrPC and granted bail to the accused persons for failure of the Central Bureau of Investigation to file charge sheet within the permissible period of 60 days.

Read more…

Saket Court
Case BriefsDistrict Court

Saket Courts, New Delhi: Anuj Agrawal, Additional Sessions Judge-05, while addressing the present matter, expressed that,

A litigant who takes liberty with court procedure should anticipate the necessary consequences.

a stern message is required to be sent to the litigants who indulge in frivolous and vexatious litigation as such litigation not only clogs arteries of justice delivery system but also deprives genuine litigants of their fundamental right of speedy trial.

It was observed that no application was moved by revisionist under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing present revision petition, challenging the orders passed by the trial court.

Factual Matrix

A complaint alleging commission of an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by revisionist/complainant with the allegation that respondent had issued a cheque for an amount of Rs 5 lakhs in discharge of their legal liability. On presentation of the said cheque, it got dishonoured for reasons ‘insufficient funds’. Respondent did not make payment despite service of notice due to which the complaint under provisions of NI Act was filed.

Last order of the trial court was passed on 4-12-2017, whereas the instant revision petition came to be filed on 19-3-2018. The limitation period as per Article 131 of Schedule to Limitation Act, is 90 days from the date of impugned order (s).

Therefore, in view of the above, the instant revision was filed beyond the limitation period. There was no application for condonation of delay or a whisper about the instant petition being filed beyond period of limitation.

“…law aids the vigilant and not the indolent.”

Settled Law

On expiry o period of limitation, a valuable right accrues in favour of other side and same cannot be defeated in a routine manner and existence of discretion by court for condoning the delay. If the delay is not properly, satisfactorily and convincingly explained, court cannot condone delay merely on asking of aggrieved parties.

Analysis, Law and Decision

Court held that the present revision was hopelessly time-barred with regard to impugned orders.

Bench before parting with this Order, expressed its anguish and was appalled by the insidious and cavalier approach of the revisionist.

In Court’s view, liberal access to justice should not be construed by anyone as a mean to lead chaos and indiscipline and frivolous petitions should be penalized with heavy cost. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly.

Further, Court stated that

It is only then the courts would be in a position to resolve genuine causes in a time bound manner and answer the concerns of those who are in need of justice. Imposition of real time costs is also necessary to ensure that access to courts is available to citizens with genuine grievances and not to frivolous petitions like the present one.

While dismissing the present revision, cost of Rs 1 lakhs were imposed for the mischievous approach. [Madhulika Tripathi v. Logix Corporate Solution (P) Ltd., Revision Petition No. 207 of 2018, decided on 22-11-2021]