The Karnataka High Court on Friday delivered an interim order staying trial court proceedings into a criminal defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi by the State BJP. Counsel for Gandhi, senior advocate Shashi Kiran Shetty, told Justice M Nagaprasanna that this was the first has been taken up. Pursuant to this plea the court returned the order, emergent notice to the respondent returnable by February 20. As the final interim order therefore in terms of the provisions of rules 7(3) and 12 of the rules, there shall be a continuation of the stay of further proceedings. The next hear is set for February 20. In the corruption rate card advertisements for the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee it accused BJP leaders of demanding commissions for appointments and transfers. The advertisement before the assembly polls had alleged that the BJP government in the state during 2019-2023 was involved in huge graft. The BJP has refuted all these assertions as fallacious and baseless. It also had problematic with the expression “trouble engine Sarkar”, which the Congress called was purposely created out of the well-known “double engine Sarkar” with the purpose of causing them electoral political damage. Gandhi reached the 42nd Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate on June 1, 2024 after being produced by the court. He was later released by the magistrate court on bails early June last year. In the same case, bail was granted to the Chief Minister Siddaramaiah and Deputy Chief Minister D K Shivakumar.
AgustaWestland chopper scam: The Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed as infrule a CBI plea for recall of bail granted to Rajeev Saxena, an accused turned approver in the Agusta Westland chopper scam case. A bench comprising of the Chief Justice of India, D Y Chandrachud has said that while releasing Saxena on the bail, the trial court had taken into consideration the medical conditions of Saxena and also the fact that he was assisting in the investigation.We do not want to put our nose in it. Instead of criticizing Justice Tahilramani and questioning his integrity, you could move the trial court, the bench comprising of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said. Senior [Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, arguing for the CBI on theHe is not cooperating. He does not answer summons. Why isn’t there a direction that he should cooperate,” Raju said. However, a Delhi Court released Saxena on February 16, 2021, on health issues bail granted to him. recall application, … said Saxena was not assisting the investigation and was declining to respond to questions put to him.
Supreme court of india has held that warranty deed to sell property provides no right to the possessor unless they have a registered sale deed through the `Indian Registration Act 1908’. The court explaining the provisions of Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 pointed out that an agreement to sell does not convey any title or any interest in the property; sale of immovable property for a consideration amounting to Rs. One hundred or more can be passed only by a registered sale deed. The facts in the case arose out of a dispute between the appellant and respondent in relation to property belonging to Shri M.A. Shanmugam where possession of the property was handed over to a company as part of a sale consideration. But after his demise, a legal heir of the party sold the property to the third party through a registered sale deed. The hon’ble Supreme Court overruled the NCLAT which was beneficial to the company holding that the company could not establish title for possession as the sale deed in respect of the disputed property was not registered, Shanmugam continued to be the record owner. The court reiterated this truth in the effect of registration in the continuity of ownership’s transfer while at the same time differentiating between ’’possession under an agreement to sell’’ and legal ownership as per the provision of Section 54 which defines a sale as passing of a title through a registered instrument in consideration of money paid.
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the father’s argument that a mother who has right of custody as natural guardian is not entitled to exercise such right since the daughter was with the father before the parents split up. Specifically, the court upheld the Family Court order to grant interim custody of a four-year-old daughter to the mother inasmuch as the couple has been married since 2010 with a son in boarding school and a four-year-old daughter living in the father’s custody. It pointed out that the best interest of the child shall be the over arching principle in all custody issues, the mother being the natural guardian of any child below the age of five years. It was proper for the court to take into account that while the child has no criminal records of crime and no any allegations of the abuse have been made against the mother, while the father was baseless in claiming that if transferred would develop a lot of trauma. This judgment also affirmed subject to application for the children to be visited fortnightly by both parents and the freedom to alter this. Legal measures under section 9 and Section 17 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1890 and under section 3 of The Hindu Minority and guardianship Act 1956 were pointed out emphasizing on the child welfare which is the paramount consideration in awarding custody.
The Supreme Court observed that only one decree or operative order can govern the same subject matter at any given time. It clarified that under the doctrine of merger, when a superior court disposes of a case—whether by modifying, setting aside, or affirming the lower court’s decree—the superior court’s order becomes the final, binding, and operative decree, effectively subsuming the lower court’s decision.The bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan heard the case in which the trial court laid down performance and called the plaintiff to deposit the balance amount of sale consideration for 20 days. After the trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for a change of possession he relied on the First Appellate Court to order him to deposit the outstanding sales consideration in accordance with legal dictates; but when the First Appellate Court interfered with this order the plaintiff took it to the Punjab & Haryana High Court for the second appeal.The High Court, while establishing the plaintiff’s allegiance in favor in his second appeal, did not enforce any precise course to deposit the residual balance of sale consideration within any sure period of time. The question before the Supreme Court was to decide whether directing the trial court to deposit the balance sale consideration, beyond a timeframe of 20 days, would still be possible once the High Court allowed the second appeal. As mentioned above, through correlation of pending trial, Justice Pardiwala also pointed out that the doctrine of merger means that the trial court judgment becomes part and parcel of the High Court order. As the High Court has not set any time limit for the deposit of the balance sale consideration, its direction overrides and no new period is started over again notwithstanding the affirmation of the order of the trial court by the High Court.The judgment affirmed that equitable relief refers to specific performance and the plaintiff is subject to the ruling of the High Court. Besides, the plaintiff is entitled to claim an extension for the time limit of twenty days minimum within which the remaining sale consideration for the property must be deposited as deposition of the agreed price under the contract of sale is as much a condition of specific performance of that contract as the actual delivery of the averred property.
A sessions court in Kolkata on Saturday convicted Sanjay Roy, the prime accused in the rape and murder of junior doctor in the RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, Kolkata.al. Additional District and Sessions Judge Anirban Das passed the order after consummating the trail in-camera for 57-seats. Not long after the three-member bench delivered the judgment, Roy said he was being framed. The court then stood its ground and told Roy it would first hear him before determining the quantum of the punishment. The quantum of punishment will be determined by the court on 20th of January.
In a recent ruling in the case of Musheer Alam v. The Supreme Court of India criticized police agencies for implementing arrests when charge sheets reached courts after they obtained case cognizance. The Indian justice system's bench made specific remarks about Uttar Pradesh police practices after saying an investigation concludes and a charge sheet is filed. Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan declared that investigations end after filing the charge sheet. The court observed that Investigating officers should conduct interrogations either during the investigative period or not at all. In their decision the court mentioned two prior rulings from Siddharth v State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) and Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI (2021). According to both Satender Kumar Antil vs. CBI (2021) and State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) the police do not need to arrest an accused party when they submit a charge sheet. The court issued bail to Musheer Alam based on his uneventful arrest record while investigating him. The court demanded his presence for trial court activities. According to this ruling unnecessary arrest after charge sheet filing creates procedural problems that damage the process and runs contrary to ongoing judicial efforts to prevent arbitrary detentions.
The Supreme Court of India clarified that proof of bodily harm is unnecessary to prove a sexual assault case this announcement functioned to correct widespread misunderstandings about sexual assault requirements. Here are the key facts from the case: The Court determined a case involving appeal of Section 363's (Kidnapping) along with Section 366-A (Inducing a minor girl to go with intent of illicit intercourse) of the Indian Penal Code [Sections 137 (Kidnapping) along with Section 96 (Inducing a minor girl to go with intent of illicit intercourse of BNS, 2023]. The victim testified about her own willingness to accompany the appellant and her missing sibling who witnessed the event remained absent from the proceedings. Medical testimony confirming the absence of physical damage to the victim enabled the Court to underscore its position that no bodily harm is a requirement for sexual assault prosecution. The Court noted that victims react to trauma in varied ways due to factors such as fear, shock, and social stigma. It stated: It is neither realistic nor just to expect a uniform reaction. Supreme Court Handbook Reference: The Court referenced its own Handbook on Gender Stereotypes (2023), which highlighted the diversity in human responses to traumatic events. The Court found that Section 366-A was not applicable since the victim was not forcibly taken away. The available evidence failed to support preserving the appellant's conviction according to court findings. The appeal was allowed, and the previous judicial decision became void. The court decision highlights the need to understand trauma responses while confronting myths about sexual assault which appear in legal proceedings.
Allahabad High Court in Alka Singh Chauhan vs. Shakti Singh ruled that the Supreme Court's order to hurried divorce proceedings should not restrict a wife's ability to challenge her divorce. Since their wedding in 2015 the couple initiated divorce proceedings in 2016 because the man sought dissolution based on his wife's purported adultery. The wife obtained court permission to move the case from Delhi to Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh under Supreme Court directives to structure rapid processing and restrict schedule extensions. The wife's request for maintenance along with litigation costs under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act resulted in a court-ordered ₹10,000 reward for expenses but the court refused her maintenance application. The issues were framed on March 27, 2019 while the husband submitted his affidavit to the wife but her right to cross-examine him was taken away the subsequent day. The court granted the divorce petition in favor of the husband on May 2, 2019 before the Supreme Court deadline expired. The wife pursued higher appeal basing her arguments on the allegation that the case proceedings had prevented her from defending against the contest. The High Court condemned the Family Court's hasty handling of the case before the wife's right to cross-examination could be properly applied. The court made it clear that speeding up judicial processes should never affect judicial fairness. The High Court annulled the divorce order to ensure the wife a proper right to defend herself and to access weekly hearings requiring daily deposits starting at ₹1000 during adjournments.
In Rekha and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh the Allahabad High Court specified fundamental rules governing the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) Section 319 summoning of additional defendants who began facing trial after charges were filed. A court declared that the trial judge requires stronger proof beyond stemming from charge framing proceedings to proceed with additional accused. According to the court jurisprudence Section 319 CrPC power must remain limited to serious evidence proving accused involvement in criminal activities. Four individuals received charges in the FIR only to be officially cleared when the investigation results were finalized. The prosecution tried to bring these individuals to the trial based solely on witness testimony. The trial court evaluated the prosecution's presented evidence to establish the existence of a first level case against these defendants. The High Court established that the procedural case presented by the prosecution mostly relied on circumstantial evidence which did not provide a direct connection between the subpoenaed persons and either the killed victim or the location of the crime. The court recorded an alleged conspiracy but it found no Section 120-B IPC charges either in the FIR or charge sheet. The court determined that the charges were too vague along with lacking evidence that met professional standards. The court dismissed the proposal to use trial witness testimonies because they lacked sufficient legal standing. The High Court reversed the trial court decision through a ruling which affirmed that Section 319 CrPC requires evidence that exceeds basic first impression evidence before prosecution can proceed against additional defendants. According to the judgment both the investigation authority and trial court must perform thorough evidence assessment before proceeding with additional defendant requirements.
In the case of Jyostnamayee Mishra vs. State of Odisha and Others the use of past irregular promotions cannot validate unlawful future promotions. As per the rules of Orissa Subordinate Architectural Service Rules 1979, Tracer positions should be filled solely through direct recruitment but the appellant attempted to gain the role because she had retired from her peon duties. The appellant maintained she deserved the promotion because other employees received it through unlawful means. Justice JK Maheshwari and Rajesh Bindal formed the bench that endorsed the Orissa High Court's rejection of the appellant's petition. The judicial process argued that unlawful promotions received by others should not serve as grounds to promote the applicant because it constitutes unlawful discrimination prohibited under Article 14 of the Constitution. Justice Bindal explained that permitting these promotions would create ongoing illegalities since people lack legal recourse through seeking actions which break established rules. The Court confirmed through reference to past case law that benefits without legal foundation cannot be used to justify additional promotions. The Supreme Court rejected the appeal and reinforced the legal mold that historical improprieties cannot normalize new appointments in violation of operational selection procedures.
Under Rimpa Saha vs. District Primary School Council Malda the Supreme Court of India established that constitutional court lawyers can legally use oral statements as part of their practice before the court. The top court invalidated a review decision from the Calcutta High Court based only on the absence of written consent for the initial court order. A review examination of an April 26 2024 order addressed irregularities within the administrative recruitment of the District Primary School Council (DPSC) Malda which happened in 2009. Council representatives gave their verbal approval for the court to pass this order. The Supreme Court upheld constitutional court practice of validating counsel-made oral statements representing parties during judicial proceedings and confirmed the April 26 order included auditable oral consent from Howrah DPSC counsel and others. A Supreme Court ruling invalidated the Calcutta High Court's permission for a review petition because of the absence of written consent. According to Justice Oka the decision to remove court orders based on unrecorded consent would destroy the system of utilizing oral court representation. The Supreme Court reinstated the April 26 original order and specified that anyone who disagreed with it could file legal challenges beneath existing laws.
Supreme Court for the first time held that a plaint cannot be partially rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) if one of the reliefs sought is barred by law, when other reliefs are valid and within the jurisdiction of the court. The order was passed by a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan in a case concerning the SARFAESI Act.Plaintiff filed a suit seeking three specific reliefs relating to ownership and title of some asset used as collateral to an extensive bank loan. It was found that two of these reliefs were found to be valid, however the third one of restoration of possession under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act was rejected and was held to be hit by bar of law as the same should have been filed with the DRT and not the Civil Court.In order to prove its point, the court found that in a situation where one relief (here Relief A) is found valid and the other one (here Relief B) isfound barred, the court, while deciding on an order VII Rule 11 application should not make adverse comments with respect to the relief B in its judgment. The court noted that it cannot partially reject a plaint and, therefore, if any relief is available, the plaint has to be allowed and cannot be rejected only on basis that the relief is barred. The ruling makes clear that: If one relief is maintainable, a plaint cannot be rejected in a civil court. The court also has the jurisdiction to rule on valid claims when individual claims are barred on other legal grounds. This judgment supports the principle that the overview of plaints should examine all of the assertions established and emphasizes procedural fairness in civil cases.
In case of Vijay Kumar vs. State Represented By Inspector of Police supreme court evaluated the judicial criteria determining whether murder convictions could qualify as culpable homicide not amounting to murder yet. According to Exception 1 of Section 300 in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) culpable homicide does not become murder when the individual suffers loss of self-control from grave and sudden provocation originating from the promiscuous behavior of the deceased. The Court stated that this provocation exception requires both grave and sudden circumstances to justify replacing murder charges with culpable homicide not amounting to murder. When either situation lacks viability the provision remains invalid. Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC applies to situations where homicide becomes lawful after unexpected provocation which occurs without planning or premeditation when viewed alongside a short temporal gap between provocation and execution of the act. According to the Court the time span of less than one minute between provocation and an act constitutes suddenness whereas anything beyond six hours does not. Such a test assesses the severity of the provocation by examining whether an ordinary person under resembling conditions would lose composure according to cultural expectations while taking personal history into account. Through court testimony it emerged that the appellant encountered a heavily intoxicated deceased person underneath a bridge before becoming physically assaulted and striking the deceased with a cement brick. Originally the Trial Court accepted Exception 1 as a defense which the High Court later confirmed. The Supreme Court determined that while the event happened during a fit of anger there was insufficient proof that the act of provocation exceeded essential limits according to Exception 1 standards. The Court recommended Exception 4 could have served better than Exception 4 as the condition of culpable homicide resulting from sudden competitive fighting without preceding planning. The Supreme Court declined to change the original judgment but transformed the sentence into the amount of time the appellant already spent in detention.
The Supreme Court of India quashed a workplace harassment case involving a female employee and her colleagues. The employee, who was female, accused her coworkers of making her resign under threat of being fired, of taking her things and of being physically and verbally harassed. She also alleged that her intellectual property on a company laptop had been illegally seized. The Court of Appeal held that the allegations were of embellished employment disputes being elevated to criminal matters, with the objective of pressuring the appellants into settling the dispute. A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra said the complaint did not fulfill the ingredients of the alleged offenses. The Apex Court quashed the High Court order which had refused to quash the criminal proceedings. It ruled that the criminal proceedings had been launched with mala fide intent to harm or to coerce for a settlement. The Court held that none of the allegations satisfied the necessary legal funding for criminal charges to be brought under IPC. The SUPREME COURT permitted the appeal and quashed the pending criminal case against the appellants holding, that the complaint did not provide the necessary factual basis that would constitute the alleged offenses.