Issue for Consideration Will a husband, who secures a decree for restitution of conjugal rights, stand absolved of paying maintenance to his wife by virtue of Section 125(4), Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, if his wife refuses to abide by the said decree and return home. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.125(4) – Disqualification under, when not attracted – Wife’s right to maintenance u/s.125, CrPC – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – s.9 – Decree for restitution of conjugal rights obtained by
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the petition filed by the appellants u/s.34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as barred by time; whether the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 apply to s.34 of to what extent; does s.4 of the 1963 Act apply to the 3-month limitation period or also to the 30-day condonable period in s.34(3); and will s.10 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 apply to s.34(3) and in what manner. Headnotes† Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – s.34 –
Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to the enforceability of the ex-parte awards against the employer-State Government and the principal of the medical college, when the employer objected the authenticity of the arbitration agreement relied on by Act, 1996 – Ex-parte arbitral awards – Enforcement by employee, when denial of the authenticity of the arbitration agreement by employer – Service dispute by the employee against the State Government and the government hospital where he was employed as regards age of
Issue for Consideration Whether the act of creating fake/multiple user IDs by an individual, who may or may not be an authorized railway agent, with the intention to procure and supply online tickets through IRCTC portal would constitute an offence under Section 143 of Headnotes† Railways Act, 1989 – s.143 – In the first of the appeal (lead appeal), M was accused of creating fraudulent user IDs with the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation web portal to procure and peddle railway tickets for profit, without being an agent
Issue for Consideration Correctness of the order of conviction against the brother-in-law for the offences punishable u/ss.306, 498-A IPC and s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, in the absence of any cogent evidence. Headnotes† Evidence Act, 1872 – s.113A – Presumption as to Invocation of s.113A – When – Deceased died on account of severe burn injuries, by setting herself on fire – Order of conviction and sentence of the appellant-brother-in-law u/ss.306 and 498 IPC and s.4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, however, acquitted for the offence punishable
Issue for Consideration Whether the appellant can be granted anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No 13 dated 14.02.2023, for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† Anticipatory Bail – Criminal Procedure Code – Section 438 – Indian order of Supreme Court, the appellant/ accused joined investigation and his custodial interrogation not required as per the State – The appellant directed to be released on bail, if not required in any other case, on such terms and conditions that may be imposed or deemed fit by the
592 : 2025 INSC 93 Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal No. 1718 of 2017) 09 January 2025 [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ] Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether Village Police Patil is a Police Officer in terms of s. 25 of the Evidence Act; and whether Extra judicial confession to Police Patil, if admissible – Appellant-husband charged for the murder of his wife – Extra judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant to the village Police Patil – Trial court acquitted the accused for the offence punishable u/ss.302 and 201
Issue for Consideration Whether the jurisdiction of civil court to try a suit is completely barred by s.34 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Headnotes† Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Act, 2002-SARFAESI Act – ss.34, 17, 13(4) – Jurisdiction of the civil court to try a suit – Plaintiff-wife inherited 1/3rd share of the suit land on the death of her husband, however husband’s elder brother without any partition amongst the heirs divided the land and sold
Issue for Consideration The two accused-appellants and their father-the third accused, were convicted by the trial court u/s.302 r/w s.34 IPC for assaulting a person with deadly weapons causing his death. High Court upheld the conviction of the appellants while setting aside father. The complainant (PW-6) who filed the FIR was initially projected as the eye witness but later turned hostile during the trial and it was only PW-10 (mother of the deceased) who claimed to be the eye witness. The conviction of appellants was challenged in the instant appeal as being
Issue for Consideration Whether an amendment to a plaint introducing a fresh cause of action can be allowed if it arises out of continuous transactions and does not alter the nature and character of the suit; whether the bar under Section 80 of the CPC applies to an suit. Headnotes† Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI Rule 17 – Amendment of plaint – When permissible – Fresh cause of action – Whether an amendment to a plaint introducing subsequent events can be allowed – Whether the amendment changes the
Issue for Consideration Whether the plaint in the subsequent suit for specific performance filed by the plaintiff, i.e., O.S. No. 49/2007, is liable to be rejected in terms of Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the said suit is of limitation. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. VII, r.11(d) – Limitation Act, 1963 – Arts. 54 and 113 – The plaintiff filed an unnumbered suit in the year 1993 for specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 26.04.1991 – The said suit
Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards plea of juvenility raised u/s.9(2) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Headnotes† Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 – s.9(2) – Plea of juvenility – Appellant charged homicide amounting to murder, for incident occurred in 1994 – On recording of statements in 2001, the appellant stated his age as 20 years – After conviction, the appellant raised the plea of juvenility during the hearing on sentence that he was around 17 years at the time of
Issue for Consideration Order dated 05.08.2014 passed by the trial court rejecting application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC came to be set aside by the High Court, which was challenged in the present appeal; The appellants submitted that there was a delay of six years (about 2200 days) in itself; and the High Court proceeded to condone the delay of about 2200 days without adverting to any of the reasons assigned by the Trial Court while rejecting application filed for recall. Headnotes† Limitation – Rules of limitation are meant to see that the parties do not
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in finding that the original plaintiff was not entitled to discretionary relief of specific performance under Section 12 of the Specific Relief Act; whether the relinquishment of claim to further performance of the remaining part of made at any stage of litigation. Headnotes† Specific Relief Act 1963 – s.12 – Specific performance of part of contract – Petitioner/plaintiff instituted a suit seeking specific performance of agreement and delivery of possession of suit property; alternatively, he sought
Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the appellant-Corporation was bound to convey the lease in favour of the respondent in terms of s.51 of the Bombay Improvement Trust Transfer Act, 1925; and whether writ petition filed before the High Court and laches and was liable to be dismissed as the cause of action had arisen in 1955 whereas the writ petition was filed in 2016 after a delay of 61 (sixty-one) years. Headnotes† Bombay Improvement Trust Transfer Act, 1925 – ss.48, 51 – Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888
Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the Sanction Order and setting aside the proceedings arising therefrom, thereby allowing the petition filed by the accused. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Whether High Court was correct in quashing commenced and the prosecution had already examined seven witnesses – Correctness: Held: The petition for quashing of Sanction Order was filed by the respondent after the trial court framed the charge and commenced the trial, rather after the prosecution examined five witnesses –
Issue for Consideration Interim release of conveyances during the pendency of the trial in NDPS (Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985) cases. Headnotes† Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Releasing of vehicle in the interim on superdari – A searched the Vehicle and found two identical soap boxes containing suspected heroin which was covered in black polythene, kept concealed inside the Tarpaulin and kept at the hood of the Vehicle – After a field test, the said suspected substance was confirmed to be 24.8 gms. of heroin
Issue for Consideration Whether it is necessary to implead a Foreign Registration Officer appointed under Rule 3 of the Registration of Foreigners Rules, 1992 in the bail application filed by a foreigner within the meaning of the Foreigners Act, 1946. Headnotes† Foreigners Act, 1946 – of Foreigners Rules, 1992 – r.3 – Foreigners Order, 1948 – Clause 5 – Civil Authority or the Registration Officer, if can oppose bail application filed by a foreign national and whether they ought to be made a party in such bail applications: Held: No – The
Issue for Consideration By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing a First Information Report registered at the instance of the 4th respondent for the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Penal Code, 1860. Headnotes† the 4th respondent filed twelve separate civil suits, claiming a declaration of his ownership in respect of the subject property – On 23.10.2020, the 4th respondent, through his constituted attorney, filed a complaint with the Police, alleging that the appellant had sold a portion of
Issue for Consideration Appellant had been convicted by the Courts below under Section 20(b)(ii)(c) of Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. The issue was whether the conviction could be said to have been vitiated because of non-compliance of Section 52A of the NDPS Act. Substances Act, 1985 – s.52A – Purpose, Nature, Extent & Scope – Allegation of non-compliance of s.52A – Onus on the accused or on the prosecution – Required standard of proof: Held: 1. On facts, it can be hardly be said that there has been any