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 nume...

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...