Law Guidance Centre

http://www.livelaw.in/six-months-waiting-period-in-section-13b2-of-hindu-marriage-act-for-divorce-by-mutual-consent-not-mandatorysc-read-judgment/

Six Months Waiting Period In Section 13B(2) Of Hindu Marriage Act For Divorce By Mutual Consent Not Mandatory:SC [Read Judgment] | Live Law Settling a contentious issue, a two Judge Bench of Supreme Court comprising Justices AK Goel and UU Lalit held that the 6 months waiting period prescribed under Section 13B(2) of Hindu Marriage Act for divorce by mutual consent is not mandatory, and can be waived under certain circumstances. There w...

Criminal proceedings are not a shortcut to civil remedies Gauhati High Court: The High Court recently through a common judgment disposed of two criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC quashing the…

Petition under S. 9 of Arbitration & Conciliation Act can be filed only before the civil court of original jurisdiction Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a civil miscellaneous petition filed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,…

Reproducing few passages from the trial Court order without analysis cannot be a ‘reasoned order’ Supreme Court: Discouraging the practice of the appellate Courts of reproducing the passages of the lower court’s order without proper analysis, the…

Dying declaration to be considered whenever the cause of death comes into question High Court for States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana: In an appeal challenging the judgment of the Sessions Court that convicted the…

PARTITION SUIT: Principles set down by SC PARTITION SUIT: Principles set down by SC

How can 'sinful' triple talaq be a matter of faith: SC asks Muslim bodies

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday asked Muslim bodies how can a practice like triple talaq be a matter of "faith" when they have been asserting that it is "patriarchal", "bad in theology" and "sinful".

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice J S Khehar also reserved its verdict on a clutch of pleas challenging the constitutional validity of triple talaq among Muslims after hearing parties including the Centre, the All India Muslim Personal Law Board, the All India Muslim Women Personal Law Board and various others for six days in summer vacation.

The court took note of repeated submissions of the AIMPLB and former Union minister and senior lawyer Salman Khurshid, who is assisting it in personal capacity, that triple talaq is not mentioned in holy Quran and is rather "sinful", "irregular", "patriarchal", "bad in theology" and "undesirable", but the court should not examine it.

Article 142 and the need for judicial restraint The Supreme Court’s use of its vast powers under the Article has done tremendous good to many deprived sections. However, it is time to institute checks and balances

HOW TO GET BAIL IN A NONBAILABLE OFFENCE?

Bail legally means procurement of release of a person from prison who awaiting trial or an appeal by the deposit of security to ensure his submission at the required time to legal authority. The security provided may be either cash or the bond of private persons of means or of a professional bondsman or bonding company.

The offences committed by an accused are classified into two i.e. bailable offence and nonbailable offence

Bailable offence

The grant of bail is a matter of right in the case of bailable offence. It may be either given by a police or by the court. The accused may be released on bail, on executing a “bail bond", with or without furnishing sureties.

The court has the right to refuse bail to an accused person even if the offence is bailable, where the person granted bail fails to comply with the conditions of the bail bond. The example of bailable offence is rioting, armed with deadly weapon, public servant disobeying a direction of the law with intent to cause injury to any person, bribery in relation to elections etc.

Nonbailable offence

A non-bailable offence in which the grant of Bail is not a matter of right. Here the Accused may request for bail and then court to grant Bail or not.

Nonbailable offence is murder, dowry death, r**e etc.

When bail may be taken in case of non-bailable offence is mentioned in Section 437 of Criminal Law in India.

1) When any person accused of or suspected of the commission of any non-bailable offence is arrested or detained without warrant by an officer in charge of a police station or appears or is brought before a Court other than the High Court or Court of Session, he may be released on bail, but he shall not be so released if there appear reasonable grounds for believing that he has been guilty of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life:

Provided that the Court may direct that any person under the age of sixteen years or any woman or any sick or infirm person accused of such an offence be released on bail:

Provided further that the mere fact that an accused person may be required for being identified by witnesses during investigation shall not be sufficient ground for refusing to grant bail if he is otherwise entitled to be released on bail and gives an undertaking that he shall comply with such directions as may be given by the Court.

(2) If it appears to such officer or Court at any stage of the investigation, inquiry or trial, as the case may be, that there are not reasonable grounds for believing that the accused has committed a non-bailable offence, but that there are sufficient grounds for further inquiry into his guilt, the accused shall, pending such inquiry, be released on bail, or, at the discretion of such officer or Court, on the ex*****on by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance as hereinafter provided.

(3) When a person accused or suspected of the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment which may extend to seven years or more or of an offence under Chapter VI, Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) or abetment of, or conspiracy or attempt to commit, any such offence, is released on bail under sub-section (1), the Court may impose any condition which the Court considers necessary-

(a) in order to ensure that such person shall attend in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed under this Chapter, or

(b) in order to ensure that such person shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused or of the commission of which he is suspected, or

(c) otherwise in the interests of justice.

(4) An officer or a Court releasing any person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), shall record in writing his or its reasons for so doing.

(5) Any Court which has released a person on bail under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), may, if it considers it necessary so to do, direct that such person is arrested and commit him to custody.

(6) If, in any case triable by a Magistrate, the trial of a person accused of any non-bailable offence is not concluded within a period of sixty days from the first date fixed for taking evidence in the case, such person shall, if he is in custody during the whole of the said period, be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Magistrate, unless for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Magistrate otherwise directs.

(7) If, at any time after the conclusion of the trial of a person accused of a non-bailable offence and before judgment is delivered, the Court is of opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of any such offence, it shall release the accused, if he is in custody, on the ex*****on by him of a bond without sureties for his appearance to hear judgment delivered.

How to ascertain court fees in suit for declaration that sale deed is null and void?

Where the executant of a deed wants it to be annulled, he has to seek cancellation of the deed. But if a non-executant seeks annulment of a deed, he has to seek a declaration that the deed is invalid, or non-est, or illegal or that it is not binding on him. The difference between a prayer for cancellation and declaration in regard to a deed of transfer/conveyance, can be brought out by the following illustration relating to `A' and `B' -- two brothers. `A' executes a sale deed in favour of `C'. Subsequently `A' wants to avoid the sale. `A' has to sue for cancellation of the deed. On the other hand, if `B', who is not the executant of the deed, wants to avoid it, he has to sue for a declaration that the deed executed by `A' is invalid/void and non- est/ illegal and he is not bound by it. In essence both may be suing to have the deed set aside or declared as non-binding. But the form is different and court fee is also different. If `A', the executant of the deed, seeks cancellation of the deed, he has to pay ad-valorem court fee on the consideration stated in the sale deed. If `B', who is a non-executant, is in possession and sues for a declaration that the deed is null or void and does not bind him or his share, he has to merely pay a fixed court fee of Rs. 19.50 under Article 17(iii) of Second Schedule of the Act. But if `B', a non- executant, is not in possession, and he seeks not only a declaration that the sale deed is invalid, but also the consequential relief of possession, he has to pay an ad-valorem court fee as provided underSection 7(iv)(c) of the Act. Section 7(iv)(c) provides that in suits for a declaratory decree with consequential relief, the court fee shall be computed according to the amount at which the relief sought is valued in the plaint. The proviso thereto makes it clear that where the suit for declaratory decree with consequential relief is with reference to any property, such valuation shall not be less than the value of the property calculated in the manner provided for by clause (v) ofSection 7.
Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Suhrid Singh @ Sardool Singh vs Randhir Singh & Ors on 29 March, 2010

Bench: R.V. Raveendran, R.M. Lodha

Citation:AIR 2010 SC 2807:(2010

"***Forwarded as received***"

*_From an interview given by Justice Karnan to Week Magazine:_*

*Why did you write to the prime minister about the alleged corruption among judges?*

As per the Indian Constitution, the judiciary is the highest body. The Central and state governments, assemblies, Parliament, bureaucrats, politicians or the general public cannot interfere with the judiciary. That’s why the judiciary is functioning as an autocratic establishment. However, the trouble is that there are no improvements, no comments, no initiatives or no opposition.

*But why did you write to the PM?*

I lodged the complaint with the prime minister against 20 judges of the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court. I have alleged that those 20 judges are corrupt. I made a request to the honourable prime minister to conduct a comprehensive inquiry with the help of a top officer from the CBI, one from the revenue intelligence, one from the enforcement wing and one from the National Investigation Agency. I also mentioned ten witnesses, who are mediators and brokers to the corrupt judges, for the illegal transaction of money. They misused judicial and administrative power.

*Who are they?*

The star witnesses are one Mr B. Hari, private secretary to the chief justice of the Madras High Court and Mr R. Kannapan, now registrar-cum-administrator of the Madras High Court. Kannapan was given double promotion by the then chief justice of the High Court since he had been maintaining confidentiality and has been very sincere with him regarding illegal transactions. Both witnesses should be interrogated by the aforesaid top officers. All culprits who are responsible for siphoning off money need third-degree treatment.

*Third-degree? Is it permissible under law?*

The law does not permit the third-degree method. But in this case, it is necessary in order to recover about Rs 10 lakh crore.

*Where is the money?*

It is invested not only in India but also in foreign countries through the international hawala system. Knowing this crucial situation, seven judges of the Supreme Court, in order to protect the 20 corrupt judges, including themselves, issued a suo motu contempt procedure against me, which is out of law and out of jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

*Why didn’t you lodge your complaint with the Chief Justice of India?*

I have lost confidence in the present Supreme Court judges. The order on February 8, 2017 by the seven judges, snatching away my administrative power, shows non-application of mind and not following the proper procedure of law. It is not suitable for ex*****on. The seven judges continuously passed erroneous orders against me in order to harass me. They even sent the West Bengal director general of police to me twice to make me comply with their order. They also ordered my medical examination to determine my mental stability. To determine my mental stability and that of the seven judges, a comparison of their judicial orders and mine should be made. After that, one would know who requires medical treatment.

*Why did the seven judges oppose you?*

They must have their own share of interest. Therefore, they adopted the shortcut method to quash my complaint.

*You run the risk of impeachment.*

I challenge the Supreme Court judges to push my case of impeachment to Parliament immediately. I am ready to face the lawmakers. But I am sure they would not do it as they would be exposed.

*Are you not afraid of impeachment?*

I am waiting for that. I requested then chief justice of India H.L. Dattu to send me to Parliament with Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul [former chief justice of the Madras High Court and now a judge of the Supreme Court], who is one of the accused persons, according to me. I made the same request to chief justice T.S. Thakur. But none of them accepted my prayer. So what can I do?

*Why do you confine yourself to corruption in the judiciary?*

During my practice as an advocate, I learned about so many irregularities among judicial officers and I was not happy. After my elevation as a judge, I noticed that most of the judges of the Madras High Court were worse than criminals. I was upset about their illegal activities, corruption, forgery, custodial r**e and caste discrimination.

*Is there a nexus between the political establishment and the judiciary?*

I will confine myself to the judiciary where I have worked for 32 years. I levelled several complaints from 2011 about the mode of selection of High Court judges, district judges, senior and junior divisional judges and their promotions.

*Did you face any threats for raising your voice against corruption?*

Since the judiciary is for the general public, I am disclosing the irregularities to them. Besides, the salary, facilities and perks of the judges are given out of public money. I am not bothered about who said what. I am not bothered about judge’s quality, but I am bothered about the welfare of the general public. So I raised my voice. I am a whistleblower. If any person—be it from the general public, from the legislature or from the executive—discloses corruption by the judges, they would be put in jail. But in my case, the situation is not applicable as I am holding a constitutional office. My fight will continue till June 11, 2017, when I retire. Thereafter, the legal fight will cease as I will lose my legal weapons.

*After retirement, what are you going to do?*

I want to start a judicial academy in Tamil Nadu. Poor people could not make a mark because of poor English. I want to give them training so that they could become good lawyers and judges.

*Have you met any BJP leaders?*

Even though I am a Hindu, two months ago I made a representation to the Supreme Court to give adequate representation to minorities like Muslims, Christians, the most backward and the de-notified for appointment as judges to various high courts. I am free-minded about religion, caste, race and creed. During my tenure, I have rendered quality judgments to litigants without any ill-will or favour. I have no intention to join any political party or to involve in any political activity. Because, the president, vice president, governors, ambassadors and judges of the Supreme Court and High Courts, should not involve in politics after their tenures are over. This is to maintain ethics.

*Is it proper to attack judges of the Supreme Court?*

They are the wrongdoers. By attacking them, I am doing nothing wrong.

*Can the Supreme Court issue contempt notice to a High Court judge?*

No, they cannot. Their order is completely wrong.

*Can you overrule the Supreme Court?*

Under the Constitution, the powers are granted to the Supreme Court under Article 32. Similar powers are given to the High Courts under Article 226. So, the Supreme Court and the High Courts are equal. It is a constitutional logjam. The Supreme Court judges cannot issue such orders against me. It is illegal and immoral.

*What was your reaction when the Supreme Court ordered your mental examination?*

I am a stable person. I was not shocked. I am a highly educated, cultured and civilised person. I have seen several bad situations in my life. So, if any kind of harsh situation arises in my life again, I won’t be afraid. I have no fear to oppose the Supreme Court judges.

*Are you against the Supreme Court or only a few judges?*

I am against only seven judges. I respect the Supreme Court.

_This interview was conducted on May 4 and 5 and has been edited for clarity._

Important Cases

Application for leave to file suit u/s 92 CPC - Applicant be annexed with the plaint as maintainability of application can be decided on the basis of averments in the plaint. (2017(2) Civil Court Cases 085 (S.C.)

Divorce - Allegations of cruelty should have the origin with reference to time, place and manner of committing such cruelty - General allegations do not constitute cruelty. 2016(4) Civil Court Cases 761 (P&H)

Dowry death - Delay of more than 3 days in lodging FIR - No whisper in the statement of informant for the delay - Fatal for prosecution case. (2017(1) Criminal Court Cases 805 (Allahabad)

Juvenile - R**e committed on more than one occasion - Juvenility has to be seen when last of such incidents had occurred. (2017(2) Criminal Court Cases 248 (S.C.)

Murder - Common object - Cannot be inferred only on the basis that weapons carried by accused were dangerous. (2017(2) Criminal Court Cases 026 (S.C.)

Pleadings - Cannot take place of proof - Plea raised in pleadings has to be proved by leading cogent and convincing evidence. 2016(4) Civil Court Cases 739 (P&H)

Proof of fact within special knowledge of accused - Shifting of burden of proof on accused - Does not apply to a case where prosecution has produced eye witness. 2016(Suppl) Criminal Court Cases 482 (Rajasthan)