Month: October 2017

Dowry Death–A pregnant woman ordinarily would not commit suicide unless relationship with her husband comes to such a pass that she would be compelled to do so. Proof of document–A document in terms of Section 65 of Act is to be proved by a person who is acquainted with handwriting of author thereof. Dowry Death–Offence under Section 304B is not compoundable and only because marriage of accused had taken place, same by itself cannot be a ground for rejecting the prosecution story.

 2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 117 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Criminal Appeal No. 1021 of…

Cognizance–Taking of–Bar on–Limitation–Cruelty to wife–The court can invoke Section 473 Cr.P.C. and can take cognizance of an offence after expiry of the period of limitation keeping in view the nature of allegations, the time taken by the police in investigation and the fact that the offence of cruelty is a continuing offence and affects the society at large. Quashment–The High Court should not go into the merits and demerits of the allegations simply because the petitioner alleges malus animus against the author of the FIR or the complainant.

2008(1) Law Herald (SC) 101 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Singhvi Criminal Appeal No. 1708 of 2007…

Dishonour of Cheque–Cognizance of offence–Amendment of 2002 to operate retrospectively–Complaint filed in 1998–Insertion of proviso 142(b) by Amendment of 2002 would not be applicable. Dishonour of cheques– Clause (a) of the proviso to Section 138 does not put any embargo upon the payee to successively present a dishonoured cheque during the period of its validity–On each presentation of the cheque and its dishonour, a fresh right- and not a cause of action – accrues in his favour

  2008(1) Law Herald (SC) 98 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aftab Alam Appeal (crl.) 1704 of…

Service Matters

Disciplinary Proceedings–Enquiry officer appointed to inquire into the charge leveled against a delinquent employee/officer is neither a court nor the provisions of the Evidence Act are applicable. Disciplinary Proceedings -Natural Justice–Summoning of witnesses–Enquiry officer has discretionary power to summon or not to summon the witnesses.

  2008(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 93 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Civil Appeal No. 5608…

Gift–Acceptance of– It is one thing to say that the execution of the deed is based on an aspiration or belief, but it is another thing to say that the same constituted an onerous gift. Gift–Acceptance of — Once a gift is complete, the same cannot be rescinded. For any reason whatsoever, the subsequent conduct of a donee cannot be a ground for rescission of a valid gift. Gift–Acceptance of–Whether an averment made in the deed of gift in regard to handing over of possession is sufficient proof of acceptance thereof by the donee? YES.

  2008(1) Law Herald (SC) 87 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Civil Appeal No. 5942…

Accident–Compensation–Term ‘Income’–The amounts, which were required to be paid to the deceased by his employer by way of perks, should be included for computation of his monthly income as that would have been added to his monthly income by way of contribution to the family as contradistinguished to the ones which were for his benefit from the said amount of income, the statutory amount of tax payable thereupon must be deducted.

    2008(1) Law Herald (SC) 80 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harjit Singh Bedi Civil Appeal No.…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.