- About Us
- Legal Updates
- Contact Us
Reported Case Laws decided by Supreme Court
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, Section 13(1)(i-a) and (i-b) – Cruelty and desertion – Petitioner appellant – husband for decree of dissolution of marriage with respondent – wife on grounds of mental cruelty and desertion – Dismissed by District Judge – Dismissal confirmed by High Court – Appeal – Appellant and respondent got married in the year 1972 – After three years of marriage, daughter was born – Because of misunderstandings between them, respondent started living separately from the year 1981 – Respondent filed several criminal proceedings against appellant – Both parties has crossed 49 years of age and were living separately since 1981 – Daughter born in 1975 had already been given in marriage – In such circumstances, held, marriage had been irretrievably broken down with no possibility of the parties living together again – Marriage dissolved by granting decree of divorce, so that parties can live peacefully in remaining part of their life – High Court not justified in refusing to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of appellant – Impugned judgment of High Court set aside.
HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955, Section 25 – Permanent alimony – Appellant-husband was ready and willing to pay lumpsum amount by way of permanent alimony to respondent-wife – Respondent not willing to accept lumpsum amount but expressed her willingness to live with appellant – Held: Respondent’s desire to live with appellant at this stage and at this distance of time was not genuine – Suggestions made by respondent rejected. 2006 (8) SCJ 746 Rishikeh Sharma Vs. Saroj Sharma
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996, Sections 34 and 43 – Limitation Act, 1963, Section 14 – Exclusion of time spent in prosecuting remedy before wrong forum – Applicability of such exclusion to Arbitration Act – Adverting to the question as to what extent Section 14 is applicable to 1996 Act and after referring to State of Goa V. M/s Western Builders (2006 (6) SCJ 205), apex Court HELD: Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 does not expressly exclude applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act – Section 43 of Arbitration Act specifically says that Limitation Act shall apply to arbitration. 2006 (8) SCJ 852 United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs. J.A. Infra Structure Pvt. Ltd.
LABOUR LAW – Misconduct – Domestic enquiry – Removal from service – Respondent, while working as Mechanic in appellant-Corporation, had committed theft of articles in the garage of Bus Depot – Domestic enquiry conducted – Enquiry Officer found him guilty of charges framed against him – Basing on enquiry report, disciplinary authority removed him from service – Labour Court holding that punishment of removal was justified – Single Judge of High Court, in writ petition, set aside order or removal and directed reinstatement of respondent with continuity of service but without back wages – On appeal, Division Bench upheld the order of single Judge – Appeal – Held: Theft committed by respondent amounted to misconduct – When he was found guilty of theft, appellant – Corporation had lost confidence or faith in him – He had no legal right to continue in appellant-Corporation – Punishment of removal from service was just and reasonable and proportionate to the proved misconduct – Labour Court had exercised its jurisdiction judiciously and fairly – Interference with the order of Labour Court by single Judge and Division Bench was uncalled for – Order of reinstatement passed by single Judge and upheld by Division Bench was contrary to law – Set aside – Order of Labour Court restored.
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, Article 226 – Judicial review – Quantum of punishment – Interference with – Held: High Court may modify the punishment only when it finds that the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved – No place for generosity or sympathy on the part of judicial forums for interfering with quantum of punishment.
LABOUR LAW – Misconduct – Disciplinary proceedings – Past conduct of workman – Held, is not relevant in departmental proceedings. 2006 (8) SCJ 837 Depot Manager, APSRTC Vs. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad
Indian Penal Code
INDIAN PENAL CODE: 1860, Sections 498-A and 302- Appeal by sole accused against his conviction, recorded by the High Court, reversing his acquittal by the trial court – case of alleged uxoricide – Appellant, husband of the deceased demanded an amount of Rs.25,000/- from the parents of the deceased for purchase of a tempo- Father of the deceased expressed his inability to meet the demand – Consequently the appellant and his parents harassed, ill-treated and beat the deceased on several occasions and denied her food- Deceased frequently complained to her parents- On the fateful day, appellant and his relatives sent word to the father of the deceased that she died of snake bite – Postmortem revealed that the deceased died of asphyxia as a result of compression of the neck – Not snake bite- Report to police FIR – (On evidence) Evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 father and mother of deceased that appellant and his parents were ill-treating the deceased and beating her and denying her food, in connection with their demand of Rs.25,000/- – On the day of occurrences P.Ws.1 and 2, their sons and daughters-in-law went to the house of the accused and found the body of the deceased placed in a sitting posture with her neck on the wall and a strip of cloth tied along her mount – P.W.3 a villager corroborated P.Ws.1 and 2 – Marks of injury of the neck, cheek, hand and other parts of the body – No eye-witnesses in the case – Evidence circumstantial – Extremely difficult to prove all circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused – In such cases accused to explain how the deceased died – Fact within the knowledge of the accused.
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Section 106, Illustration (b) – Case law considered – Law does not require prosecution to prove the impossible – Legal proof is not perfect proof – Where the accused does not give an explanation or gives a false explanation under Sec.313 Cr.P.C. as to how the deceased died adverse inference to be drawn that the accused is responsible for the crime – Appellant did not offer any explanation as to how the deceased received the injuries on her body – Circumstances unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant. 2006(8) SCJ 821 Trimukh Maroti Kiran v. State of Maharashtra
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, Sections 376, 417 – Appeals by accused against conviction and sentence – Appellant-accused daily visited the house of the prosecutrix P.W.1, who was living with her elder sister P.W.2 and her husband – Prosecutrix used to be alone – Accused promise to marry her, developed intimacy, with her, had sexual intercourse with her promising to marry her – Accused made her pregnant and finally refused to marry her – Panchayat held where accused promised to marry her – Then absconded having said his parents did not agree – Report to police – Trial – Acquittal by trail court – Conviction and sentence on appeal – Question whether the conduct of the accused falls under any of the six descriptions of Sec.375 IPC – Question of consent.
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, Section 90 – (On evidence) In the instant case the intention of the accused as perP.W.1, was right from the beginning not honest and he kept on promising to marry her – This consent is no consent since P.W.1 was under the misconception that he would marry her – Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 that before the panchayat elders accused made a false promise to marry P.W.1 – Case law considered on consent and when consent can be considered as voluntary – Consent obtained by misconception while playing a fraud is not a consent (para 9).
EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, Section 114-A- Presumption of absence of consent to be raised in certain prosecutions for rape – In the instance case P.W.1 consented as the accused promised to marry her – Not a consent in law – Accused had no intention to marry her right from the beginning and committed sexual intercourse – Conviction and sentence correct – No interference – Appeals dismissed. 2006 (8) SCJ 695 Yedla Srinivasa Rao Vs. State of A.P.
*Source: Supreme Court Journal