Legal News & Views

Cause Title :  Ramesh Chandra Gupta vs State Of U.P. & Ors., Supreme Court Of India, Criminal Appeal No(S). 2060 Of 2022 Date of Judgment/Order : November 28, 2022 Corum : Ajay Rastogi; J., C.T. Ravikumar; J. Citied:  Vineet Kumar and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2017) 13 SCC 369 State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy (1977) 2 SCC 699 State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others Background An FIR was lodged against the accused and a charge sheet was filed under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 504, 506, 448, 387 IPC. approached the Allahabad High Court seeking quashing of the FIR/Charge Sheet. As the High Court dismissed it, they approached the Apex Court. Judgment In appeal, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court has not examined as to what was the complaint and how the present accused are, in any manner, concerned with the so-called alleged commission of...

Cause Title :  Anjali Vilas Deshpande vs Prabha Rajendra Gupta, First Appeal No. 17 Of 2022, Bombay High Court Date of Judgment/Order : 18th November 2022 Corum : G.S. Patel & Gauri Godse, JJ. Citied:  Sarla Varma and others v DTC and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 National Insurance Company Limited v Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680 Magma General Insurance Company Ltd v Nanuram, (2018) 18 SCC 130 Background Appeal was filed by the Appellant/claimants was the compensation allowed by the Tribunal. The said compensation was based on the salary of the deceased as well as his possible promotion.  The A ppellant  claimed that the tribunal had erred in relying only on the last drawn salary slip of the deceased and refused to consider the income of the deceased as per Form 16 which is submitted under the Income Tax Act. The  Appellant/claimants  relied upon last letter issued by the employer which revealed that the employer had rev...

  Cause Title :  K.S. Rama Rao vs Subbalakshmi, R.S.A No. 1092 OF 2018, Karnataka High Court,  Date of Judgment/Order : 17 November, 2022 Corum : Sachin Shankar Magadum; J. Citied: NA Background The Plaintiff had claimed that he and his elder brother (now deceased) had jointly purchased a property in the name of the elder brothers wife (also deceased)  out of joint earnings in a hotel run by them . Plaintiff also claimed that he was in joint possession over the suit schedule property and that his brother acknowledging his contribution towards sale consideration, has made a bequeath under his will. This claim was disputed by the daughter of the elder brother. The trial court rejected the claim stating that there is no mention in regard to the joint earning of plaintiff and his elder brother and there is no covenant indicating that the sale consideration was jointly pooled by plaintiff and his elder brother. As for the will, the trial court was...

Cause Title :  Chipsan Aviation Private Limited vs  Punj Llyod Aviation Limited,  Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 261 of 2022,  National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi Date of Judgment/Order : 10th November, 2022 Corum : Justice Ashok Bhushan Chairperson, Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Citied:  Construction Consortium Limited vs. Hitro Energy Solutions Private Limited – (2022) SCC OnLine SC 142 Background An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency Code was filed against the Corporate Debtor (Respondent) alleging an advanced of Rs. 60 lakhs was provided to the Respondent – Corporate Debtor for aviation related services, which services were not provided by the Corporate Debtor nor the advance paid by the Appellant was refunded. The advance payment was reflected in the Balance Sheets of the Corporate Debtor as  as advance received from the customers  under the head current liabilities. ...

Cause Title :  Kiran Tomar & Ors versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No 1865 of 2022, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : October 31, 2022 Corum : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; J., Hima Kohli; J. Citied: NA Background The Family Court in a matter of maintenance of wife and child had directed the husband to pay his wife Rs 20,000 per month and Rs 15,000 each of his daughters.  The High Court on appeal set aside the order of the family court stating :- Whereas the wife stated that the husband earns an amount of Rs Two Lakhs per month, his income tax return indicates that the husband is earning Rs 4.5 Lakhs per annum; and The Family Court had not indicated the basis on which it had assessed the income of the husband  at Rs Two Lakhs per month. The matter reached the Supreme Court. Judgment Setting aside the order of the High Court and restoring the Criminal Revision to the file of the High Court of Judicature at...

Cause Title :  Nagesh vs State Of Karnataka, Criminal Revision Petition No.580/2013, Karnataka High Court Date of Judgment/Order : 29th Day Of October, 2022 Corum : S. Rachaiah, J. Citied:  Background The appellants were accused before the trial court as well as the appellate court. Both courts have found them guilty of having accused severe injury to several people who were ploughing on a disputed field using the ploughing equipment being used by the injured. However, the trial court had also noted that by virtue of a court order, the father of the accused who is also the uncle/granduncle of the injured, was the owner of the field and therefore the accused were not trespassers. Judgment The High court observed that both courts have failed to appreciate the evidence and the relevant law. Once it is agreed that the accused are not trespassers, rather the injured were cultivating on land which did not belong to them, Section 96 and 97 of the Indian Penal Code come...

Cause Title :  Bharat Kalra vs Raj Kishan Chabra, Civil Appeal  No.3788  Of 2022, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 9th May, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta & V. Ramasubramanian, J.J. Citied: Kailash V. Nankhu & Ors. reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 Background Appeal was filed against order passed by the High Court whereby delay of 193 days in filing of the written statement was not condoned. Judgment Referring to the judgement in  Kailash V. Nankhu & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court concluded that :- i) All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of th...