Legal Reference Library

The Punjab and Haryana high court has held that mutual consent divorce orders passed by the court cannot be annulled by an assertion of any party later that the decree was meant to be a sham for facilitating employment in a foreign country. Dismissing a petition filed by a woman from Sonipat district in Haryana, Justice K Kannan of the HC held that marriage was the only contract that couldn't be annulled by mere wish of parties outside the court. The woman had claimed that she had agreed for a divorce by mutual consent after her husband convinced her that by dissolving the marriage, his prospects of going abroad and securing necessary travel documents would brighten. She never believed that the decree of the court was 'really' meant to end her matrimonial relationship. She had approached the court to quash the divorce orders issued by the lower court. Hearing the plea, the HC on January 21 observed that proceedings of court cannot be brought under thick clouds of irrev...

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH AT GWALIOR Present HON. SHRI JUSTICE B.D.RATHI 1 Day of December, 2014 (Cri. Rev. No.56/2014) Smt. Sunita Dubey Vs. Hukum Singh Ahirwar Connected with (Cri. Rev. No.59/2014) Smt. Sunita Dubey Vs. Dev Kishan Ahirwar Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 45 - Examine insertion of the entries in the cheque through Handwriting Expert - Held, the instrument may be wholly blank or incomplete in any particular; in either case, the holder has the authority to make or complete the instrument as a negotiable one. The authority implied by a signature to a blank instrument is so wide that the party so signing is bound to a holder in due course even though the holder was authorised to fill for a certain amount. Section 20 of the Act declares that inchoate instruments are also valid and legally enforceable. In the case of a signed blank cheque, the drawer gives authority to the drawee to fill up the agreed liability....

The Supreme Court of India in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1996 SC 1042 : (1996) 1 SCC 667 : JT 1995 (9) SC 165 : 1995 (7) SCALE 272 : 1996 (1) ALD(Cri) 72 : (1996) 2 CALLT 12 (SC) : 1996 CriLJ 1368 : (1996) 2 GLR 598 : [1995] Supp 6 SCR 556 held that the court granting anticipatory bail should not substitute itself for the original Court and the duration of the bail order should also be limited. A bench comprising of A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., S.C. Sen and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ. observed that ordinarily the regular Court which is to deal with that particular offence cannot be by passed. # Anticipatory Bail Order The petitioner filed an application in the High Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and secured an ad-interim anticipatory bail order which was to enure upto 26.9.1995. The High Court imposed certain conditions, one of which was that he will report at the Police Station every day till 25.9.1995. When the matter came up on t...

Hyman and Anr. v. Rose, 1912 A.C. 623; referred to King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmed, 71 I.A., 203, State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya, [1961] 1 S.C.R. p. 14 @ 26; referred to. Bal Chand Jain v. State of M.P., [1977] 2 S.C.R. 52, distinguished. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, [1978] 1 S.C.C. 248; applied. State v. Captain Jagjit Singh, [1962] 3 S.C.R. 622, followed. The Supreme Court of India in Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 1632 : (1980) 2 SCC 565 : [1980] 3 SCR 383 : 1980 CriLJ 1125 : (1980) 82 BOMLR 518 considered the scope of anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Act 2 of 1974). A full bench comprising of Y.V. Chandrachud, C.J., O. Chinnappa Reddy, P.N. Bhagwati, R.S. Pathak and N.L. Untwalia, JJ. also explained judicial balancing of personal liberty and the investigational powers of the Police. The appellant herein, Sri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia was a Minister of Irrigation and Power in the Congress Ministr...

That the question of addition of parties under r. 10 of O. I of the Code of Civil Procedure, is generally not one of initial jurisdiction of the court, but of a judicial discretion which has to be exercised in view of all the facts and circumstances of a particular case; but in some cases, it may raise controversies as to the power of the court, in contra distinction to its inherent jurisdiction, or, in other words, of jurisdiction in the limited sense in which it is used in s. 115 of the Code. That in a suit relating to property in order that a person may be added as a party, he should have a direct interest as distinguished from a commercial interest in the subject matter of the litigation. Where the subject-matter of a litigation is a declaration as regards status or a legal character, the rule of present or direct interest may be relaxed in a suitable case where the court is of the opinion that by adding that party it would be in a better position effectually and completely to ad...

The Supreme Court of India in Savitri Devi Vs. District Judge, Gorakhpur, AIR 1999 SC 976 : [1999] 1 SCR 725 : (1999) 2 SCC 577 : JT 1999 (1) SC 643 : 1999 (1) SCALE 516 : (1999) II MLJ 110 (SC) : (1999) 2 CALLT 38 (SC) held that avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings was one of the objects of order I Rule 10 CPC. While dismissing the appeal, the Apex Court held that respondents 3 to 5 were necessary and proper parties to the suit and their impleadment was warranted. A bench comprising of Chief Justice M. Srinivasan and Justice S.N. Phukan observed that if the application for impleadment was thrown out Respondents 3 to 5 would certainly come up with a separate suit to enforce their alleged rights. # Necessary and Proper Parties The appellant plaintiff filed a civil suit against her four sons for a decree of maintenance and for creation of a charge over the ancestral property of the family. By consent of parties, civil court passed an interim order directing parties not to trans...

The Supreme Court of India in Sumtibai Vs. Paras Finance Co., AIR 2007 SC 3166 : 2007 (10) SCR 543 : (2007) 10 SCC 82 : 2007 (11) SCALE 596 : JT 2007 (11) SC 479 held that merely allowing the legal representatives to be impleaded but not allowing them to file additional written statement would violate natural justice. A bench comprising of A. K. Mathur & Markandey Katju JJ. observed that property was purchased in favour of the deceased and his sons. They had semblance of title and are not mere busybodies or interlopers. Thus, orders of courts below rejecting application to file additional written statement, set aside. # Additional Written Statement Kapoor Chand entered into an agreement to sell his property to the respondent. Respondent filed suit for specific performance of contract for sale against Kapoor Chand. During pendency of the suit, Kapoor Chand died and his legal representatives-appellants were impleaded. Thereafter, appellants filed application under Order 22 Ru...