Tagged: Supreme Court of India

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – WHETHER THE COURT HAS POWER TO CLOSE THE PROCEEDINGS OF A CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE COMPLAINANT?

Yes the Court has the power to close the proceedings of a cheque bounce case without the consent of the Complainant. The question for consideration before the Supreme Court of India in M/s Meters and Instruments Private Limited & Anr. versus Kanchan Mehta was that if the accused is willing to deposit the cheque amount can the proceedings be closed...

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

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 the basis of mutual consent...

Directions on Cruelty – Dowry Demand and Misuse Of Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code

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 may be accused of...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – THE COMPENSATION IS STILL RECOVERABLE IN A CHEQUE BOUNCE CASE BY THE COMPLAINANT EVEN THOUGH THE ACCUSED HAS SERVED THE DEFAULT SENTENCE

The question that arose before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India was that what happens to the money receivable by the Complainant in the form of Compensation when the Accused undergoes jail term, in default of the compensation, under such circumstances is the Compensation still recoverable by the Complainant? The Hon’ble Supreme Court observes that that the gravity of offences...

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...

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...

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...

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA – IN THE ABSENCE OF A REGISTERED INSTRUMENT THE COURTS ARE NOT PRECLUDED FROM DETERMINING THE FACTUM OF TENANCY FROM THE OTHER EVIDENCE ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE CONDUCT OF THE PARTIES

Date of Judgement: 29.08.2016 : Non registration of the document would cause only two consequences. One is that no lease exceeding one year is created and the Second is that the instrument become useless so far as creation of the lease is concerned. Thus in the absence of registration of a document, what is deemed to be created is a...