Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Matrimonial

Matrimonial

Divorce—By Mutual Consent—Waiting period of six months from date of filing application is not mandatory and is directory in nature. Divorce—By Mutual Consent—Waiving off waiting period—Court before whom proceedings are pending including Family Court/District Court can exercise the discretion. Divorce–By Mutual Consent—Waiving off waiting period— The statutory period of six months specified in Section 13B(2), in addition to the statutory period of one year under Section 13B(1) of separation of parties must be already over before the first motion itself.

Oct 1, 2017 sclaw

2017(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2273 (SC) : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1394 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before                    Hon’ble Mr. Justice Adarsh Kumar Goel Hon’ble Mr. Justice Uday UmeshLaiit Civil…

Matrimonial

Cruelty to Wife–Arrest–Prevention of misuse of S.498-A IPC—Directions issued that there will be no automatic arrest—Complaint has to be forwarded to a family welfare committee and till committee submits its report there can be no arrest. Cruelty to Wife—Investigation—To be done only by a designated investigating officer of the area. Cruelty to wife—Bail—Recovery of disputed dowry items will not be a ground for denial of bail. Cruelty to wife—Compromise—Quashing—District & Sessions Judge empowered to close the criminal cases with regard to matrimonial discord. Cruelty to Wife—Clubbing of Cases—It would beopen to the District Judge to club all connected cases between the parties arising out of matrimonial disputes. Cruelty to Wife—Prevention of misuse of S.498-A, IPC—Personal appearance of all family members—Trial court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing. Cruelty to Wife—Physical Injuries—Directions issued for prevention of misuse of S.498-A, IPC will not apply to the offences involving tangible physical injuries or death.

Sep 24, 2017 sclaw

2017(2) Law Herald (SC) 1470 : 2017 LawHerald.Org 1139 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before Hon’ble Justice Mr. Adarsh Kumar Goel, Hon’ble Justice Mr.Udey Umesh Lalit CRANo. 1265 of…

You missed

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw