An individual complaint for numerous dishonored cheques may be filed as long as the single legal notice issued combines them all; and the actual wrong committed arose from a single transaction if both conditions are fulfilled- so ruled Jammu and Kashmir's High Court. The cause of action in each case is the same because a common legal notice was issued and that is what gives rise to it. Thus according to the honble court, the cause of action comes about when after 15 days the accused fails to reply or make payment, not on the day of dishonour or when the cheque was put forward.
The accused has been charged for murdering his wife and then cremating the corpse in a hair-raising way. The crime was committed in their family home and as sole witness, his wife had young daughter. The Supreme Court held that although there was delay in recording statement of such witness, The Court itself is stressed that under the Indian Evidence Act, section 118, if a child witness can both understand terms of questions and give rational responses thereto, then they are competent. The Supreme Court decided that not only is the child witness competent under section 118 of evidence act inawna but also if his testimony is credible& The Supreme Court also explained the criteria for recording and evaluating a child witness's testimony in judicial.Literature, professional In the end, the Supreme Court granted the State's application, repudiated High Court and convicted defendant based on testimony of child witness as well as other circumstantial evidence.
The Supreme Court dismissed a case against a public servant, citing the absence of prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 CrPC. The Court ruled out the notion of "deemed sanction," clarifying that Section 197 CrPC does not recognize such a concept.
The appellant was accused of kidnapping and murdering a minor girl (the deceased). The FIR was filed by the deceased's father, stating that the appellant, with the help of his mother and brother-in-law, had kidnapped his daughter. They had promised to arrange a marriage, but the girl was missing for several days. That section of the Evidence Act is concerned with the circumstances under which information given by an accused can lead to a discovery and be admissible.The Court noted discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses' testimonies. This was most pronounced with regard to the recovery of the body. For instance, it may have been seen at the police station rather than where it was actually found.Some witnesses claim the body had already been seen from its discovery location up until they reached police headquarters at an area closer or further than 200 yards! According to the Court, what appellant said did not lead to recovery and so Section 27 could not sustain the prosecution case.
Thus, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that an arbitration agreement is binding even qua the legal representatives of a deceased partner of a partnership firm. The appellants’ argument was rejected by the Supreme Court. It reiterated that the term “partners” in an arbitration agreement includes their legal heirs, representatives, assigns, legatees, etc. The Supreme Court ruled that the legal heirs of a deceased person continue to hold rights arms concerning the enforcement of the arbitral award or to be bound by the arbitral award, meaning the legal heirs will not be prejudiced and continue to act as representatives of that party. The Court further noted that, under Section 40 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the death of a party does not affect the existence of an arbitration agreement. Validates that death of a partner does not extinguish any rights to sue for renditions of catastrophic accounts under a partnership agreement.
The husband claimed that his wife pressurized him to stay away from the family and was using abusive language against him. The father-in-law, on left, eventually killed himself after his daughter-in-law harassed him and his family with false complaints by his own wife. But she and her father were absolved in a criminal case under Sections 306 and 34 IPC. The Punjab & Haryana High Court confirmed the order of the Family Court granting divorce to the husband on ground of cruelty under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act.
The Supreme Court stressed that when a woman dies in circumstances which is not found to be normal, especially in dowry death cases such as when such a woman dies within a few years' time of her marriage, there has to be a stricter scrutiny in regard to such a dowry death case. It added that keeping the accused out on bail would in fact be prejudicial to the interest of justice in the present case given the evidentiary material indicating a nexus of dowry demands and physical cruelty by the accused, with the victim’s death. The Court reiterated that courts will have to dive deeper when it comes to granting bail in dowry death cases so as to not erode the trust of society in justice delivery system.
The Bombay High Court recently declared that a marriage registered under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 cannot be treated as illegal, void and unenforceable merely because one of the spouses failed to fulfil the requirement under Section 5 of the Special Marriage Act, under which, one of the spouse is required to stay within the district in which the marriage is registered for a period of 30 days.
The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment instructing the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examinations authorities to set separate cut-off marks and create a distinct merit list for candidates in the Persons with Disabilities (PwD) category at each stage of the examination. This ruling aims to ensure fair treatment and equal opportunities for PwD candidates in judicial service selections, mandating specific accommodations throughout the process.
The complainant was a highly educated, well settled adult, who had consensually sexual relation with the accused for 16 years. The complainant alleged that the accused had established carnal intercourse with her on a false promise of marriage. The Supreme court while quashing the criminal proceedings against the accused, held that the breach of a promise of marriage does not amount to rape unless it is shown that the accused never intended to marry from the beginning.
The Supreme Court of India heard an appeal challenging the conviction of the appellant under Sections 120B, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case concerned the fabrication of a mark sheet that was used for admission to an MBBS course.
Supreme Court reiterated that non-executive and independent directors of a company cannot be vicariously held liable for the company and its liabilities under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act) unless there is evidence of personal involvement of the director(s) in the payment of debt of a company. The ruling further elaborates that the intention of the law is to punishing directors of the company for cheque dishonor under Section 141 of the NI Act, must be supported with evidence that the director had knowledge of and was directly involved in the business affairs of the company.
There are five broad circumstances outlined by the Court, under which a change of place for trial might be considered: State machinery or prosecution plotting with the accused tends to lead to miscarriage of justice through prosecutorial carelessness. Material evidence which shows that it is likely for the accused to influence prosecution witnesses or bring serious harm to at least one of them. Comparative inconvenience and hardship on both accused, complainant, state witnesses as well as the prosecutors, and the expense of travel for them. Atmosphere in common through which members of the community could become so agitated that no fair or prejudice free trial is likely because nature crimes contrived this way by several idols of innocence themselves making accusations against someone else people. Interference with the due process of law through hostility, whether directly or indirectly, by certain participants.
On March 6, the apex court asked all High Courts to do an exercise of collecting data of all execution petitions pending in the district judiciary. The Court noted that the executing courts were taking three to four years to make appropriate orders, which was frustrating the decrees in favour of the decree-holders.
The Supreme Court of India set aside a preventive detention order against an individual accused of involvement in a gold smuggling syndicate, highlighting critical procedural lapses by the detaining authority. The Supreme Court also ordered the immediate release of the detenu if he is still detained (and he has been detained since March 5, 2024).The grounds for the detention were held to be right under COFEPOSA s. 3(1)(i) to (iv). However, a procedural lapse in making the order invalid. (The detention order was nullified by the Authority ignoring bail conditions.)