Month: July 2019

Agreement to Sell—Concurrent findings of fact—The issue of readiness and willingness is the most important issue for considering the grant of specific performance of the contract and the same having been held (in favour or against the plaintiff) by the Courts below on appreciation of evidence; is binding even on Supreme Court

2019(1) Law Herald (P&H) 855 (SC) : 2019 LawHerald.Org 608 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Hon’ble Ms. Justice indu Malhotra Civil Appeal…

Dowry Death—Causing disappearance of Evidence—Acquittal—Appellants were acquitted u/ s 304-B IPC but were convicted u/s 201 IPC-Conviction u/s 201IPC could not be made merely on an assumption that the cremation of the body of deceased was not possible without the active connivance of the Appellants—Appellants held entitled to benefit of doubt-­ Appellants acquitted under 201 IPC also.

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1742 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1021 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon*ble Mr. Justice L. Nageswara Rao Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.R. Shah Criminal Appeal No.…

Examination of Witness—Video Conferencing—In a criminal trial, where the witness was found residing/situate outside India and whose evidence was essential for the case set up by the prosecution then evidence of witness can be recorded through video conferencing Examination of Witness—Mere long pendency of trial by itself cannot be a ground for declining an application for examination of material witness

2019(2) Law Herald (SC) 1716 : 2019 LawHerald.Org 1030 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre Honble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari Criminal 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.