Blogs about: High Court
Featured Blog
A person having 100 per cent burns can make a statement, and a certificate of fitness provided by a doctor is not a condition precedent for placing reliance upon a dying declaration.= In our opinion, as the defence did not put any question either to the executive magistrate, or to the I.O., or to the doctors who had examined her or conducted the post-mortem, with respect to whether any part of the thumb had skin on it or not, as in both the dying declarations, ridges and curves had been clearly found to exist, we do not see any reason to dis-believe the version of events provided by the executive magistrate and the I.O., who had recorded the dying declarations. No suggestion was made to either of them in this regard, nor was any explanation furnished with respect to why these two independent persons who had recorded the dying declarations, would have deposed against the respondents accused. In the event that both of them had found the deceased to be in a fit physical and mental condition to make a statement, there exists no reason to disbelieve the same.
Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2303 of 2009 State of Madhya Pradesh …Appellant Versus Dal Singh & Ors. …Respondents J U D G M E… more →
advocatemmmohan
The dangers of social media
wrote 15 hours ago: Image via CrunchBase The High Court has sent out a warning to users of Twitter by ruling that Sally … more →
Sally Bercow's Lord McAlpine tweet was libel
wrote 18 hours ago: Sally Bercow won’t apologise A tweet by Sally Bercow about Lord McAlpine has been ruled … more →
Rihanna's Lawsuit Goes to the High Court
wrote 1 day ago: Rihanna’s lawsuit against high street giant, Topshop is going to the high court. The “Un … more →
Petition against Altaf Hussain: LHC issues notices to MQM, PTA, PEMRA
wrote 1 day ago: LAHORE: Justice Khalid Mahmood Khan of the Lahore High Court (LHC) has issued notices to Muttahida Q … more →
Be careful what you shout about: How comments made to groups of staff become contractually binding
wrote 1 day ago: Ever said something you later lived to regret? We all have I suppose; but a recent decision of the C … more →
High Court rules that billionaire fraudster should lose three luxury properties
wrote 1 day ago: Kazakh businessman Mukhtar Ablyazov fled the UK on a Europe-bound coach last year after he was sente … more →
A person having 100 per cent burns can make a statement, and a certificate of fitness provided by a doctor is not a condition precedent for placing reliance upon a dying declaration.= In our opinion, as the defence did not put any question either to the executive magistrate, or to the I.O., or to the doctors who had examined her or conducted the post-mortem, with respect to whether any part of the thumb had skin on it or not, as in both the dying declarations, ridges and curves had been clearly found to exist, we do not see any reason to dis-believe the version of events provided by the executive magistrate and the I.O., who had recorded the dying declarations. No suggestion was made to either of them in this regard, nor was any explanation furnished with respect to why these two independent persons who had recorded the dying declarations, would have deposed against the respondents accused. In the event that both of them had found the deceased to be in a fit physical and mental condition to make a statement, there exists no reason to disbelieve the same.
wrote 2 days ago: Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. … more →
Murder case = i) As per site plan (Ex.P-9) mustard crop, standing on the land in dispute was destroyed by the tractor. ii) As many as 14 member of the complainant party sustained injuries. Veerpal died as a result of injuries received by him. iii) Member of complainant party had gone to the land in question unarmed and asked the accused party not to disturb mustard crop whereas accused party had gone with lethal weapons. iv) There is chequered history of litigation between the complainant party and the accused party. v) Accused Sita Ram and Ranveer had guns whereas accused Ranveer, Yogendra and Balla had kattas (country made pistols) and they indiscriminately opened fire at the members of complainant party. vi) According to Prahlad Singh I.O. (PW.29) cross case bearing FIR No.254/99 under sections 447, 323, 341, 147 and 148 IPC was registered against the members of accused party. Ghambhir Singh (appellant) sustained simple injuries that were incorporated in injury report (Ex.D.15).” 12. The High Court, after re-appreciating the evidence on record, has rightly rejected the contention of self-defence that had been raised, and acquitted some of the convicted accused, giving them the benefit of doubt. In light of such a fact-situation, we do not see any cogent reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.
wrote 2 days ago: Page 1NON-REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1 … more →
Victory for welfare campaigners as judges rule controversial disability benefits procedure is unfair
wrote 2 days ago: Three judges have ruled that the procedure currently used by the Department for Work and Pensions (D … more →
specific performance of an agreement of re-conveyance of the suit land. is not maintainable =The District Court also held that Ex-18, the alleged agreement of re-conveyance did not mention that there was a loan transaction between the parties and that Ex-19, the sale deed was not to be acted upon. It did not mention the date and period within which the suit land was to be re-conveyed after payment of the loan amount. Therefore, the case that Ex-19 was a nominal sale deed cannot be accepted. = Ex-19 is a genuine sale deed. It clearly speaks of an out and out sale. We have stated that Ex-18 is not an agreement to re- convey the land on repayment of loan. The sale deed [Ex-19] is clearly worded leaving no scope of ambiguity. So far as Ex-18 is concerned, it is so worded as not to establish any link with Ex-19. It does not speak of any loan transaction at all. Though there is no ambiguity in Ex-19 and we are certain that the transaction in question is a genuine sale transaction, to lend support to our conclusion we may touch upon the surrounding circumstances. If Ex-18 was to be an agreement for re-conveyance, it would not have been titled as 'Receipt'. It would have been signed by the original plaintiff and the defendant. It is pertinent to note that it is signed only by the defendant. It is executed on a simple paper. It does not state within what time the amount was to be repaid and the agreement of repurchase was to be executed. It is also important to note that in the cross-examination, original plaintiff has clearly admitted that Ex- 18 was executed before execution of sale deed [Ex-19]. Hence, the original plaintiff's case that the defendant insisted that he would lend money to him only if he would execute nominal sale deed and, therefore, the nominal sale deed was executed and the loan was advanced, does not stand to reason. The District Court has rightly said that at the most it could be said that Ex-18 culminated into a genuine sale deed [Ex-19]. The original plaintiff's case that the transaction of sale was followed by agreement for re-transfer is not substantiated. It is also hit by Section 58(c) of the Transfer of Property Act which this Court analyzed in Chunchun Jha and stated that if sale and agreement for re-purchase are embodied in separate deeds then the transaction cannot be a mortgage whether the documents are contemporaneously executed or not. Here we clearly have two separate documents. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Raj Kishore v. Prem Singh[3]. The High Court, therefore, clearly erred in holding that there was an agreement for re-conveyance and the original plaintiff was entitled to specific performance thereof.- In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 20/7/2004 is set aside. The judgment and order dated 12/3/1986 passed by the District Judge, Buldana in Regular Civil Appeal No.130 of 1983 is restored.
wrote 2 days ago: ‘ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1648 OF 2006 DAS … more →
Rommy Mom Vs BSEMA, Matter struck out
wrote 2 days ago: The Suit between Rommy Mom and the Benue State Emergency Management Agency under the FOI Law for inf … more →
Beyond the Jacintha Saldanha Inquest: The Australian High Court has trashed 15,000 welfare recipient fraud convictions, a testament to the power of one determined welfare recipient.
wrote 2 days ago: On May 8th 2013, the Australian High Court trashed 15,000 of Centrelink’s welfare recipient fr … more →
Public has right to know Boris Johnson fathered child during affair, court rules | Politics | guardian.co.uk
wrote 3 days ago: Public has right to know Boris Johnson fathered child during affair, court rules | Politics | guardi … more →
What kind of conservative argues against our representative democracy?
wrote 4 days ago: On May 8th 2013 an opinion piece by Jai Martinkovits was published by Perth Now (News Ltd). At the e … more →
Dismissal for Gross Misconduct - High Court refuses remedy sought of Judicial Review
wrote 4 days ago: The recent High Court case of Purdy v Commissioner of An Garda Siochana [2013] IEHC 141 (High Court, … more →
Non- framing of charge cause no prejudice = In the case at hand, the basic ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC have been established by the prosecution inasmuch as the death has occurred within seven years in an abnormal circumstance and the deceased was meted out with mental cruelty. Thus, we convert the conviction from one under Section 304B IPC to that under Section 306 IPC. As the accused has spent almost five years in custody, we limit the period of sentence to the period already undergone.= It is a sad plight in the trial courts that witnesses who are called through summons or other processes stand at the doorstep from morning till evening only to be told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to another day.- "We make it abundantly clear that if a witness is present in court he must be examined on that day. The court must know that most of the witnesses could attend the court only at heavy cost to them, after keeping aside their own avocation. Certainly they incur suffering and loss of income. The meagre amount of bhatta (allowance) which a witness may be paid by the court is generally a poor solace for the financial loss incurred by him. It is a sad plight in the trial courts that witnesses who are called through summons or other processes stand at the doorstep from morning till evening only to be told at the end of the day that the case is adjourned to another day. This primitive practice must be reformed by the presiding officers of the trial courts and it can be reformed by everyone provided the presiding officer concerned has a commitment towards duty."= "Unnecessary adjournments give a scope for a grievance that the accused persons get a time to get over the witnesses. Whatever be the truth in this allegation, the fact remains that such adjournments lack the spirit of Section 309 of the Code. When a witness is available and his examination-in-chief is over, unless compelling reasons are there, the trial court should not adjourn the matter on the mere asking."= Recently, in Akil @ Javed v. State of Delhi[17], the Court, after surveying the earlier pronouncements, has stressed on the compliance of the procedure and expressed its anguish that the trials are not strictly adhering to the procedure prescribed under the provisions contained in Section 231 along with Section 309 of the CrPC, and further emphasised that such adherence can ensure speedy trial of cases and also rule out the possibility of any maneuvering taking place by granting undue long adjournment for mere asking.- We have expressed our anguish, agony and concern about the manner in which the trial has been conducted. We hope and trust that the trial courts shall keep in mind the statutory provisions and the interpretation placed by this Court and not be guided by their own thinking or should not become mute spectators when a trial is being conducted by allowing the control to the counsel for the parties.- It needs no special emphasis to state that dispensation of criminal justice system is not only a concern of the Bench but has to be the concern of the Bar. - An advocate cannot afford to bring any kind of disrespect to fairness of trial by taking recourse to subterfuges for procrastinating the same. 35. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed and the appellant be set at liberty if his detention is not required in connection with any other case. '
wrote 5 days ago: ‘ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 744 OF 201 … more →
GIFT = WILL = SETTLEMENT DEED = whether a document can be treated as a gift where the executor reserves his interest of maintenance throughout his life with certain other conditions or will or rather a mere settlement of its own kind.= Thus, Section 122 defines 'gift' as gift inter vivos or an absolute gift. An absolute gift, (which is the subject matter under the Act, 1882) or gift inter vivos as distinguished from a testamentary gift or one made in contemplation of death, is one by which the donee becomes in the lifetime of the donor, the absolute owner of the thing given. Further, in case of a gift the provision becomes operative immediately and under transfer in praesenti is intended and comes into effect.= In terms of Section 122 of the Act 1882, it is necessary that there should be vesting of interest forthwith, though possession and enjoyment of the property may be postponed to a later date. Even if a document is styled and registered as a settlement deed containing the recital of devolution of interest in the properties to vest on the death of a settler after his life time, such a document may be termed only as a 'Will' and not 'gift deed'. 7. The fact that the document purports to reserve a life interest in the property to the donor with certain other terms is a 'Will'. = "Settlement Deed" executed in 1922 is neither a `Will' nor a gift. However, it did not transfer the title in favour of the second party therein. The executor of the said settlement deed sold the land to the respondents for consideration. The sale deed was valid and appellants could not claim any benefit under the said settlement deed, the title did not vest in favour of their predecessors in interest.
wrote 5 days ago: ‘ The Gift of Time (Photo credit: Wikipedia) IN THE SUPREMECOURT OF INDIA CIVIL … more →
a complaint against the respondents alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 468 and 471 of the IPC. Crime No.41/10 was accordingly registered in the Central Crime Branch, Chennai Suburban, St. Thomas Mount for the said offences against respondents 2, 3 and 4. Aggrieved, the respondents filed Criminal O.P. No.15917 of 2010 for quashing of the FIR as also investigation in connection therewith =suit based on two forged sale deeds = In Iqbal Singh Marwah's case (supra) a Constitution Bench of this Court had authoritatively declared that Section 195(1)(b)(ii) Cr.P.C. was attracted only when the offences enumerated in the said provision have been committed with respect to a document after it has been produced or given in evidence in any court and during the time the same was in custodia legis.= It would be a strained thinking that any offence involving forgery of a document if committed far outside the precincts of the Court and long before its production in the Court, could also be treated as one affecting administration of justice merely because that document later reached the court records.- The sequitur of the above discussion is that the bar contained in Section 195(1)(b)(ii) of the Code is not applicable to a case where forgery of the document was committed before the document was produced in a court."- the bar contained in Section 195 against taking of cognizance was not attracted to the case at hand as the sale deeds relied upon by GWL for claiming title to the property in question had not been forged while they were in custodia legis.= In the light of the above, the High Court was wrong in quashing the FIR on the ground that the allegations did not constitute an offence even when the same were taken to be true in their entirety. It was also, in our view, wrong for the High Court to hold that the respondents were not the makers of the documents or that the filing of a civil suit based on the same would not constitute an offence. Whether or not the respondents had forged the documents and if so what offence was committed by the respondents was a matter for investigation which could not be prejudged or quashed by the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
wrote 5 days ago: ‘ ITEM NO. Judgment Court No.10 SECTION IIA Statue of Manu Needhi Cholan in the … more →
Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC for impleadment as defendants in a suit for specific performance of contract being Suit No. 3426 of 1991 filed by plaintiff-Respondent No.1.= The doctrine of lis pendens applies only where the lis is pending before a court. Further pending the suit, the transferee is not entitled as of right to be made a party to the suit, though the court has a discretion to make him a party. But the transferee pendente lite can be added as a proper party if his interest in the subject-matter of the suit is substantial and not just peripheral. A transferee pendente lite to the extent he has acquired interest from the Defendant is vitally interested in the litigation, where the transfer is of the entire interest of the Defendant; the latter having no more interest in the property may not properly defend the suit. He may collude with the Plaintiff. Hence, though the Plaintiff is under no obligation to make a lis pendens transferee a party, under Order 22 Rule 10 an alienee pendente lite may be joined as party. As already noticed, the court has discretion in the matter which must be judicially exercised and an alienee would ordinarily be joined as a party to enable him to protect his interests. The Court has held that a transferee pendente lite of an interest in immovable property is a representative-in-interest of the party from whom he has acquired that interest. He is entitled to be impleaded in the suit or other proceedings where the transferee pendente lite is made a party to the litigation; he is entitled to be heard in the matter on the merits of the case"= The appeal is allowed and the appellant added as party defendant to the suit in question, in terms of the signed judgment.
wrote 5 days ago: ‘ IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal NO. 1518 of 2013 (Ar … more →
