Legal News & Views

The Supreme Court on Monday held that sale of minors’ property cannot be done without obtaining court’s permission. Quashing sale of properties of minor daughters by a widow 25 years ago, the Supreme Court said that under Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, sale of such property cannot be done without prior permission of the court. “As per clause (a) of sub­section (2) of Section 8 no immovable property of the minor can be mortgaged or charged or transferred by sale, gift, exchange or otherwise without the previous permission of the court,” a bench of SJ Mukhopadhyaya and V Gopala Gowda said. “Under sub-section (3) of Section 8, disposal of such an immovable property by a natural guardian, in contravention of sub­section (1) or sub­section (2) of Section 8, is voidable at the instance of the minor or any person claiming under him,” it said. The court turned down the plea of the mother who justified selling of the property for taking care of her minor daughters and for their l

Emphasising that appraisal of threat perception was not its business, the Supreme Court Monday said no person can ask for security from the State as a matter of his right and that it was "primarily" for the police authorities to decide on its necessity. "Nobody has a fundamental right to security...nobody can demand it as a matter of right. Nobody is entitled to security at state expenditure. We are not going to regulate grant of security to people. There is a competent authority to examine security threat perception," said a Bench of Justices T S Thakur and Vikramjit Sen. The Bench said there were authorities to decide on who should be provided the security and if there was a miss, they will be answerable to the court. "This (security) cannot become a permanent feature. Nobody is entitled to it as a matter of right. It is based on threat perception, which is to be examined by the concerned agency. We are not here for examining threat perception," poi

 In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court has held that in a murder case based on circumstantial evidence, conviction can be imposed on an accused even if the motive for the killing is not established. The verdict was delivered by justices V K Tahilramani and V L Achliya, who, on November 11, upheld the life sentence awarded to Railway Protection Special Force Jawan Shivram Sharma (45) for gunning down head constable Udhal Singh in 2009. Sharma was convicted on September 9, 2010 by a sessions court in Mumbai. Being aggrieved, he filed an appeal in the high court which upheld the lower court verdict. Sharma's counsel Arfan Sait argued that the relations between the appellant and the deceased were good and they were friends, hence, there was no motive for the appellant to have committed the crime. He submitted that in such a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. "No doubt, this is so. But, motive is such that it is locked up in the mi

 A woman has a right over the property of her husband but she cannot claim a right to live in the house of her parents-in-law, a Delhi court has said. The court made the observation while dismissing an appeal of a woman, who is a doctor in a government hospital here, seeking right of residence in her mother-in-law’s house in which her husband does not have any share. “If it is anybody against whom or against whose property she (woman) can assert her rights, is the husband, but under no circumstances can she thrust herself on the parents of her husband or can claim a right to live in their house against their consult and wishes,” Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau said. The court said she is a working woman and being a doctor, she is in a position to maintain herself. “Keeping in view the problems and disputes between the parties, allowing the woman to stay in her parents-in-law’s house against their wishes would only aggravate the existing domestic problems and create numerous

In a landmark verdict with far reaching consequences, the Supreme Court on Tuesday made it mandatory for the police to register First Information Report (FIR) in all cognizable offences. Delivering the order, a bench headed by Chief Justice P Sathasivam said that action will be taken against the police officer for his failure to register a FIR on the complaint of a cognizable offence. Speaking for the bench, Chief Justice Sathasivam said that the legislative intent is for compulsory registration of FIR in case of cognizable offence. Cognizable offences are those which attract punishment of three years or more in case of conviction and where an investigating officer can arrest an accused without warrant. Article referred:  http://zeenews.india.com/news/nation/police-must-register-fir-in-all-cognizable-offences-supreme-court_889291.html

Merely making a demand for dowry is not enough to bring about a conviction in a dowry death case, the Supreme Court on Tuesday held saying that it must be proved that victim had been treated with cruelty or harassed for it. "Merely making a demand for dowry is not enough to bring about a conviction under Section 304-B of the IPC. As held in Kans Raj case a dowry death victim should also have been treated with cruelty or harassed for dowry either by her husband or a relative," a bench of justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Madan B Lokur said. The bench also expressed concern over delay in disposing of the appeal filed by a man challenging his conviction in dowry death of his sister-in-law which took nine years. Referring to the delay in dispoal of cases, the court quipped, "It is high time those of us who are judges of this court and decision makers also become policy makers", without elaborating. The bench acquitted the man Bhola Nath in the case saying that

An insurance company was held guilty of deficiency of service for falsely denying the claim of a widow on the grounds that her husband had defaulted on the policy premium. LIC of India has been directed to pay Komal Kewalramani Rs 5.05 lakh with 8% interest and an additional Rs 10,000 as costs. The insurance company had filed an appeal in the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in 2009, after a district forum passed an order against it. Komal's husband, Ashok, had procured the policy in March 2004, and paid a quarterly premium of Rs 9,500. Ashok died on December 10, 2004, following which his wife filed the claim. But in February 2006, the claim was rejected on the grounds that Ashok had not paid the premium due in September 2004. Komal contended that when Ashok had gone to pay the premium, the company officers had told him that as per the status report, the premium was already credited. Aggrieved with the rejection, Komal filed a complaint in the Thane dis

Farhad Sattha sold his 2007-make Bajaj Pulsar motorcycle to Farzad Mithaiwalla on June 30, 2009, for Rs 45,000. Under the Motor Vehicles Act (MVA), when a vehicle is sold, the buyer has to apply to the RTO for transfer of the registration within 30 days of purchase. Thereafter, the purchaser has to apply within 14 days to the insurance company for transfer of insurance certificate. The insurance policy cannot be transferred till the RTO's transfer formalities are completed. On June 30, 2009, Mithaiwalla applied to the RTO for registration transfer. Since the registration certificate issued at the time of purchase was in booklet form, it had to be converted to a smartcard certificate. The RTO took a month to process the transfer and issued the smartcard certificate July 31, 2009. Thereafter, Mithaiwalla had 14 days, that is by August 14, 2009, to apply for transfer of insurance policy. However, before he could do so, on August 7, 2009, the motorcycle was stolen. An FIR was lo

The Bombay High Court has observed that the object of awarding monetary compensation to a family which has lost its sole bread-winner is to ensure that the surviving members can lead a normal life at least financially. "The object of awarding compensation is to restore the dependents/claimants to the pre-accidental position as far as possible by compensating the victim's family in monetary terms for the loss of their only bread-earner member," Justice A P Bhangale said in a ruling last week. The court increased the compensation awarded to a family from Ratnagiri from Rs 8.8 lakh to Rs 13.8 lakh. The order was passed on an appeal filed by Darshana Kanavaje, who lost her husband, Ganesh, in an accident in 2008 when a state transport bus rammed into him. In May 2010, the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal at Ratnagiri directed the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation to pay Rs 8.8 lakh to the family, which comprised Darshana, the couple's three minor children,

A high court cannot direct a lower court to grant bail to an accused as this fetters the trial court’s powers, the Supreme Court has ruled. The apex court quashed the bail granted to a murder accused, Sweekar Nayak, by a trial court in Odisha as it had been directed to do so by the state high court. Ironically, the high court had declined to grant Nayak anticipatory bail but asked the trial court to grant him bail if and when he sought such relief. The apex court bench of Justices Ranjana Prakash Desai and Madan B. Lokur passed the recent order on an appeal moved by Sudam Charan Dash, father of Rajib who was murdered in a hotel on January 5, 2009. Dash had earlier approached the high court alleging a weak police investigation. This led to the probe picking up momentum. On January 3 this year, the Rayagada subdivisional judicial magistrate (SDJM) issued a non-bailable warrant against Nayak. Nayak then sought anticipatory bail from the high court, which rejected the plea citin

 An income tax defaulter cannot be absolved of paying penalty by just making a voluntary disclosure after being caught for hiding the income, the Supreme Court today said. "It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty," a bench of justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri said. The apex court dismissed the plea of a company challenging the income tax department's penalty proceedings against it for not disclosing the income. The company MAK Data P. Ltd.contended it had "surrendered" the additional sum of Rs.40,74,000 after the assessing officer issued notice to it with a view to avoiding litigation. The department had initiated penalty proceedings for concealment of income and not furnishing true particulars of its income. The company contended "