Advocates Club Blog

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – SIX MONTH COOLING PERIOD IN A DIVORCE BY MUTUAL CONSENT CAN BE WAIVED BY THE FAMILY COURT

Date of Judgement: 12.09.2017:   In the matter of Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur the question which arose for consideration before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in this appeal was whether the minimum period of six months stipulated under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for filing of second motion for passing of Decree of divorce on...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – DIRECTIONS ON CRUELTY – DOWRY DEMAND AND MISUSE OF SECTION 498-A OF INDIAN PENAL CODE

Date of Judgement: 27.07.2017: Main contention raised in this appeal is that there is need to check the tendency to rope in all family members to settle a matrimonial dispute. Omnibus allegations against all relatives of the husband cannot be taken at face value when in normal course it may only be the husband or at best his parents who...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – REGISTRATION OF FIR IS MANDATORY IF THE INFORMATION GIVEN TO THE POLICE DISCLOSES THE COMMISSION OF A COGNIZABLE OFFENCE

Date of Judgement: 06.01.2017 : What is necessary is only that the information given to the police must disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, in such a situation, registration of an FIR is mandatory. However, if no cognizable offence is made out in the information given, then the FIR need not be registered immediately and perhaps the police can conduct...

DELHI HIGH COURT – IF THE SIGNATURES ON THE CHEQUES ARE ADMITTED BY THE ACCUSED THEN THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ACCUSED THAT THE AMOUNT AND NAME OF THE DRAWEE WERE NOT FILLED IN BY THE ACCUSED DOES NOT HAVE ANY FORCE IN THE EYES OF LAW

Delhi High Court Date of Judgement: 16.11.2016 If the signatures on the cheques are admitted by the accused, it matters little if the name of the payee, date and amount are filled up at a subsequent point in time and therefore the contention raised by the accused that the amount and name of the Drawee were not filled in by...

DELHI HIGH COURT – A LIFE SENTENCE MEANS THE ACTUAL LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE CONVICT

Delhi High Court Date of Judgement: 09.11.2016 Life sentence is not limited to either 14 years, or 20 years, or even 25 years. A life sentence means the actual life imprisonment for the entire life of the convict. The same may be curtailed by the State by premature release. However, that is the discretion of the State Government to be...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – THE STATEMENTS AND ACTS WHICH CONSTITUTES AN ACT OF CRUELTY FOR SUSTAINING THE CLAIM FOR DIVORCE

Supreme Court of India Date of Judgement: 06.10.2016 FACTS OF THE CASE:- The reason for filing the divorce petition was that the wife had become cruel because of her highly suspicious nature and she used to level absolutely frivolous but serious allegations against Husband regarding his character and more particularly about his extra-marital relationship. Behaviour of the wife made life...

DELHI HIGH COURT – THE ONUS OF PROVING THE RELATIONSHIP OF EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER LIES UPON THE WORKMAN

Delhi High Court Date of Judgement: 20.09.2016 During the course of the hearing, the learned counsel for the workman/petitioner was asked to show if there is any document to prove that the petitioner was ever paid any monies by the respondent or any other document to prove that there was an employer–employee relationship between the workman/petitioner and the employer/respondent, but no...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – WHETHER A POST-DATED CHEQUE GIVEN AS “SECURITY” AND MENTIONED IN THE LOAN AGREEMENT IS COVERED BY SECTION – 138 OF THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 OR NOT?

Supreme Court of India Date of Judgement: 19.09.2016 Whether the dishonour of a post-dated cheque given for repayment of loan installment which is also described as “security” in the loan agreement is covered by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 or not? The agreement recorded that post-dated cheques towards payment of installment of loan (principal and interest) were...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – WHETHER A PRIVATE PERSON CAN BE PERMITTED TO CONDUCT AND ENGAGE A PRIVATE COUNSEL IN SESSION COURT TRIAL AND MAGISTRATE COURT TRIAL OR NOT?

Supreme Court of India Date of Judgement: 06.09.2016 A private person can be permitted to conduct the prosecution in the Magistrate’s Court and can engage a counsel to do the needful on his behalf but as far as session trial is concerned the legislative intention is manifestly clear that prosecution in a Sessions Court cannot be conducted by anyone other...