Month: September 2023

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 – Section 5(24) – ‘related party’ – if an individual is a director of a private or public company and, along with relatives, holds more than two percent of the company’s share capital or paid-up share capital, that company is considered a ‘related party.’ – The explanation also specifies that both maternal and paternal uncles fall under the definition of ‘related party.’

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH EVA AGRO FEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED — Appellant Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : B. V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan,…

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Sections 13(1) and 13(1A) – Grant of Decree of divorce – Denial of – The parties in question have been living apart for fifteen years -there is no reason to prolong the distress of maintaining a marital status when they are not living together – In light of the mentioned reasons, the judgment of the Trial Court and the subsequent confirmation by the High Court is hereby overturned – As a result, the appeal is accepted, and a divorce decree is granted.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SMT. ROOPA SONI — Appellant Vs. KAMALNARAYAN SONI — Respondent ( Before : Sanjiv Khanna and M. M. Sundresh, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Service Matters

Punjab Police Rules, 1934 – Rule 12.21 and 16.24 – Discharge of Inefficients – Case involving the discharge of a constable from the Punjab Police force – The constable, ‘J’, was discharged during his probation period due to prolonged absence without any intimation – The Supreme Court examined the relevant rules and held that ‘J’ discharge was justified as he was found unlikely to become an efficient police officer.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. JASWANT SINGH — Respondent ( Before : J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ. ) Civil…

Penal Code, 1860 – 120B, 409, 411, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 474 – Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme (Banning) Act, 1978 – Sections 4, 5, and 6 – Interlocutory applications filed by accused individuals seeking bail – the court agrees with the prosecution that the applicants should approach jurisdictional courts rather than seeking relief from the higher court – However, the court extends the interim bail granted to the applicants for three months to enable them to seek bail from the concerned courts.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PACL — Appellant Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION — Respondent ( Before : A. S. Bopanna and M. M. Sundresh, JJ. ) IA. No.…

Even in a case where the final report of the police under Section 173 is accepted and the accused persons are discharged, the Magistrate has the power to take cognizance of the offence on a complaint or a Protest Petition on the same or similar allegations even after the acceptance of the final report

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH ZUNAID — Appellant Vs. STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Bela M. Trivedi and Dipankar Datta, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal…

Delhi Development Act, 1957 – Section 57 – Claim for interest – the court finds that the circumstances of the deposit did not involve any loss due to the “Act of Court” and that the notification was in force when the deposit was made – Therefore, the court rejects the claim for interest – The appellants are advised to pursue remedies for their subsequent losses separately.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY AND ANOTHER — Appellant Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.S. Bopanna and Prashant…

You missed

For best interest and welfare of the child are the paramount considerations when determining visitation rights A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The paramount consideration when determining visitation rights is the best interest and welfare of the child — This principle takes precedence over the rights of the parents — The court emphasizes that a child’s health and well-being must not be compromised in the process of adjudicating parental rights. B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Both parents have a right to the care, company, and affection of their child — However, this right is not absolute and must be balanced with the need to protect the child’s welfare — In this case, the court acknowledges the father’s right to visit his daughter but ensures that these visits do not negatively impact the child. C. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Matrimonial disputes and serious allegations between parents should not impede a child’s right to the care and company of both parents — The court separates the child’s welfare from the conflict between the parents. D. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Visitation arrangements must not cause undue hardship to the child — The court modified the High Court’s order, which required the child to travel 300 kilometers every Sunday, as it was deemed detrimental to the child’s health and well-being. E. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — The location for visitation must be convenient and in the best interest of the child — The court changed the visitation location from Karur to Madurai, which is closer to the child’s residence, in order to prioritize the child’s comfort and convenience. F. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — Section 26 — Visitation Rights — Supervised visitation may be necessary, especially for young children — The court directed that the father’s visits should occur in a public place, with the mother present (though at a distance), due to the child’s young age and unfamiliarity with the father.