Legal Reference Library

A crime of ‘serious nature’ should be treated as a crime against the society and not an individual and such a case cannot be quashed even if the offender and victim reach an amicable settlement, the Bombay high court has said. A division bench of justices N.H. Patil and P.D. Naik on 25 August refused to quash a case lodged against 12 people on charges of attempt to murder and various other sections of the IPC. The accused had petitioned the high court seeking to quash the FIR lodged against them on the ground that they have amicably settled the dispute with the complainants. The high court, however, refused to accept this contention and said, “The accused have committed crime against the society.” The bench noted that if the crime committed by the accused is ‘heinous’ and of a ‘serious nature’ then it should be treated as a crime against the society and not against an individual alone. “It becomes the duty of the State to punish the crime doers even if there is a settlement/compr...

There is nothing wrong in a woman expecting to maintain the same lifestyle in the society in which she lived with her estranged husband, the Bombay high court said, and in a partial relief to a man from a royal family, ordered him to deposit 75% of the Rs11-crore permanent alimony. A division bench of Justice Naresh Patil and Justice Prakash Naik asked Ranjeet Nabha to deposit with the high court registry within three months 75% of the permanent alimony awarded by the Bandra family court — Rs6 crore for his former wife Udita and Rs5 crore for their minor daughter. The estranged couple had tied the knot in March 1995 at Dadri in Uttar Pradesh, and stayed in New York till 2006. They returned to Mumbai where Udita approached the family court seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of objectionable conduct and behaviour of her husband. In September 2015, the Bandra court dissolved the marriage and directed Nabha to pay Rs11 crore as permanent alimony to Udita and their daughter. H...

Award passed by Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal: Award passed by Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is binding till it is substituted by another award/court order/court compromise indicating such substitution, or is replaced by another settlement, or terminated by either party under S. 19(6). Settlement/compromise/scheme in question arrived at before court after passing of awards concerned, did not amount to substitution of the awards in absence of any specific indication as to such substitution given in order passed by court pursuant to compromise. [T.N. Terminated Full Time Temporary LIC Employees Assn. v. LIC, (2015) 9 SCC 62]

The Supreme Court last week gave thumbs up to settlement of disputes against litigation among business family members when it ended three-decade row in the case, Rajni Sanghi vs Western Indian State Motors Ltd. The court ruled that if the parties settled their differences amicably, their agreement shall prevail though there were other proceedings like arbitration. Even if there is an arbitration award, which has not been made into a decree of the court, the family arrangement will override it. This was a case of partition of business among four branches of a family whose head died in 1961. Differences cropped up in the 1980s and there was litigation in three high courts with complicated questions of fact and law. There was also an arbitration award which was not made decree of the court. Meanwhile, the parties filed settlement deeds before the Bombay and Rajasthan high courts. The disputes continued over technical details. Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the settlement arrived at ...