JUDGEMENTS
| CIVIL MATTER | ||||
TOPIC | TITLE | YEAR | DETAILS | LINK |
| GPA VALIDITY | Suraj Lamp & Industries Pvt. Ltd. VS State of Haryana & Anr. | 2011 | Immovable property can be legally and lawfully transferred only by registered deed like sale, gift conveyance etc., Transaction i.e., execution of GPA / SPA / WILL etc., in respect of immovable property, do not convey any title, and thus, are not legally recognised valid modes of transfer of immovable property. | Judgement Circular -1 Circular -2 |
When to file
| Anathulla Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy & Ors | 2008 | Para 11.1- When a Plaintiff is in lawful or peaceful possession of a
property and such possession is disturbed or threatened by the defendant,
a suit for injunction simpliciter will lie. A person has a right to protect his
possession against any person who does not prove a better title by
seeking a prohibitory injunction. But a person in wrongful possession is
not entitled to an injunction against the rightful owner.
Para 11.2- Where the title of the Plaintiff is not disputed, but he is not in possession his remedy is to file a suit for possession and seek in addition, if necessary an injunction. A person out of his possession cannot seek the relief of injunction simpliciter, without claiming the relief for possession. Para11.3- Where the plaintiff is in possession but his title to the property is dispute, or under a cloud, or where the defendant asserts title thereto and there is also threat of dispossession from the defendant, the plaintiff will have to sue for declaration of title and consequential relief of injunction. Where the title of the Plaintiffs is under cloud or in dispute and he is not in possession or not able to establish possession, necessarily the plaintiff will have to file a suit for declaration, possession and injunction. | Judgement |
| CIVIL | CASE TITLE | 222 | BAIL BOOND | LINK |
| CIVIL | CASE TITLE | 222 | BAIL BOOND | LINK |
| CIVIL | CASE TITLE | 222 | BAIL BOOND | LINK |
| CIVIL | CASE TITLE | 222 | BAIL BOOND | LINK |
| CRIMINAL MATTER | ||||
TOPIC |
TITLE |
YEAR |
DETAILS |
LINK |
Compoundable Offences under CrPC 320 | Mahalovya Gauba v. State of Punjab and Another | 2021 | that criminal proceedings involving compoundable offences can be divided into two categories: 1) Settlement without Court Consent – Under Section 320(1) of the CrPC, criminal offences can be settled without requiring the court’s consent. 2) Settlement with Court Consent – Under Section 320(2) of the CrPC, certain criminal proceedings can be settled with the court’s approval. The Lok Adalat is empowered to handle compoundable criminal cases falling into both of these categories, those which can be settled without the court’s consent (Section 320(1)) and those that require the court’s consent (Section 320(2)). While Section 320(1) of the CrPC doesn’t explicitly state that compounding can only occur after filing a case under Section 173(2) of the CrPC and not before, the wording in Section 320(2) seems to suggest the same. The question arises whether, during the investigative stage, compoundable criminal cases can be settled before the submission of a case file under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. | Judgement |
| One Surety in more cases (Sec 441A CrPC) | Tabassum Parveen vs State Of U.P | 2021 | "Declaration by sureties- Every person standing surety to an accused person for his release on bail, shall make a declaration before the Court as to the number of persons to whom he has stood surety including the accused, giving therein all the relevant particulars." | |
| Offence u/s 182 IPC is void ab initio if there is no written complaint (Sec 172 - 188 IPC) | Saloni Arora v. State of NCT of Delhi | 2017 | law laid down by this Court in the case of Daulat Ram vs. State of Punjab, (AIR 1962 SC 1206) that in order to prosecute an accused for an offence punishable under Section 182 IPC, it is mandatory to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 195 of the Code else such action is rendered void ab initio. | Judgement |
| CRIMINAL | CASE TITLE | 222 | BAIL BOOND | LINK |
| CRIMINAL | CASE TITLE | 222 | BAIL BOOND | LINK |
| CRIMINAL | CASE TITLE | 222 | BAIL BOOND | LINK |
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
| FAMILY MATTERS | ||||
TOPIC | TITLE | YEAR | DETAILS | LINK |
| Waving off mandatory cooling period in Mutual Divorce Cases | Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur | 2017 | The period under Section 13B(1) is merely directory, and not mandatory | |
| Waving off mandatory cooling period in Mutual Divorce Cases | Sankalp Singh v. Prarthana Chandra | 2013 | That the period of one year stipulated in Section 13B(1) may be waived provided a case of "exceptional hardship" or "exceptional depravity" is made out before the court | LINK |
| Whether denial of Sex can qualify as "exceptional depravity" under S. 14 of HMA and allow waver of one year mandatory period? | Rishu Aggarwal v. Mohit Goyal | 2022 | High Court held that denial of cohabitation in a marriage cannot be regarded as "exceptional hardship" or "exceptional depravity", it could not call for waiver of a mandatory period of one year which is to be waived as matter of exception, and not a matter of rule. Additionally the court remarked that denial od conjugal relationship, or non-consummation due to temperamental/behavioural differences can only be a ground for divorce, under cruelty | LINK |
| FAMILY | CASE TITLE | 222 | BAIL BOOND | LINK |
| FAMILY | CASE TITLE | 222 | BAIL BOOND | LINK |
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
| NI ACT MATTERS | ||||
TOPIC |
TITLE | YEAR |
DETAILS |
LINK |
Not only fund insufficient reasons other reasons also and Security Cheque also attract 138 |
PAYAL MALHOTRA VS. SULEKH CHAND |
2023 |
Not only the cases of dishonour of cheques on account of insufficient funds or exceeding of arrangement but the cases involving dishonour of cheques on accounts of “payment stopped” and “account closed” have also been brought within the ambit of offence under the aforesaid provision. |
Judgement |
| Claim amount in the cheque and other charges should be mentioned as separate in Legal Notice u/s 138 | Suman Sethi v. Ajay K. Churiwal and another | 2000 | In the notice in question the "said amount" i.e. the cheque amount has been dearly stated. Respondent No. 1 had claimed in additional to the cheque amount, incidental charges and notice charge. These two amounts are severable. In the notice it was clearly stated that on failure to comply with the demand necessary legal steps will be taken up. If respondent No. 1 had paid the cheque amount he would have been absolved from the criminal liability under Section 138. Regarding other claims, a civil suit would be necessary We, therefore, do not Find any merit in the present appeal and accordingly it is dismissed | Judgement |
| Partner of partnership firm filing 138 compliant | M/S New Kruba Jeweller Vs. V.Kanchana | 2016 | Under Sec 25 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, if a partner files a complaint on behalf of the firm, the firm and other partners are bound by the Act. | Judgement |
| Cheque Amount can't be more than actual claim | Dasharatbhai Trikambhai Patel v. Hitesh Mahendra Bhai Patel | 2022 | Accused has made part-payments and the claim should be on balance payment / pending payment and the Cheque amount can't be more than 'Legally enforceable Debt" | Judgement |
| Validity of Security Cheque | Sampelly Satyanarayana Rao v. Indian Renewable Energy Development Agency Limited | 2016 | The previous judgement in Indus Airways Private Limited v. Magnum Aviation Private Limited, Security cheques were given against purchase order which was later cancelled by the purchaser and requested to return the security cheque but the seller filed case under Ni Act S. 138, which was not against a legally enforceable debt, because no purchase were made in Sampelly security cheques were given against loan EMI and security cheque dishonoured against default in instalment will attract NI Act 138 | Judgement |
| Examination of Handwriting in cheque | Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Prabhodh Kumar Tewari | 2022 | Considering previous judgements in...
A meaningful reading of the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act including, in particular, Sections 20, 87 and 139, makes it amply clear that a person who signs a cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheque had been issued for payment of a debt or in discharge of a liability. It is immaterial that the cheque may have been filled in by any person other than the drawer, if the cheque is duly signed by the drawer. If the cheque is otherwise valid, the penal provisions of Section 138 would be attracted. If a signed blank cheque is voluntarily presented to a payee, towards some payment, the payee may fill up the amount and other particulars. This in itself would not invalidate the cheque. The onus would still be on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of a debt or liability by adducing evidence. Even a blank cheque leaf, voluntarily signed and handed over by the accused, which is towards some payment, would attract presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in the absence of any cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a debt. | Judgement |
