Sahayata & Sahayata

Case Details: Date: 17 July 1984 Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: Syed Murtaza Fazalali, A. Varadarajan, Sabyasachi Mukharji Citation: 1984 AIR 1622, 1985 SCR (1) 88 Background: The case revolves around the death of Manjushree (Manju), wife of the appellant Sharad Birdhi Chand Sarda. The prosecution alleged that Manju was poisoned (potassium cyanide) by the appellant due to his alleged illicit relationship and mistreatment of his wife. The defense argued that Manju committed suicide out of emotional distress and frustration. Charges: Section 302 IPC (Murder) Section 120B IPC (Criminal Conspiracy) Section 201 IPC (Causing disappearance of evidence) Trial Court Judgment: Sharad Sarda sentenced to death under Section 302 IPC. All three accused (Sharad, his brother, and uncle) sentenced to rigorous imprisonment and fined under Section 120B IPC. High Court Judgment: Confirmed the death sentence of Sharad Sarda under Section 302 IPC. Acquitted the other two ac...

The article discusses a Supreme Court ruling regarding a criminal appeal by Kanishk Sinha and his wife, who are involved in two cases of forgery and fraud. Here are the main points: Case Background : Kanishk Sinha and his wife face allegations of cheating and conspiracy in two criminal cases, initiated by different complainants. Legal Proceedings : The appellants sought revisions in the Calcutta High Court concerning the dismissal of their complaints. Their argument was based on a prior Supreme Court ruling requiring complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC to be supported by an affidavit. High Court Ruling : The High Court determined that the affidavit requirement from the Supreme Court ruling is prospective and does not apply to the appellants' earlier cases from 2010-2011. Retrospective vs. Prospective Law : The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, stating that judicial interpretations usually have retrospective effects unless otherwise noted, thus supporting the ap...

Case Analysis: Shivnarayan (D) By LRs vs Maniklal (D) Thr LRs (6 February 2019) Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice K.M. Joseph Equivalent Citations: AIRONLINE 2019 SC 355, (2019) 134 ALL LR 736 1. Facts of the Case: Disputed Properties: a) Indore Property – Plot in Sudama Nagar, Indore, Madhya Pradesh b) Mumbai Property – Flat in Sahitya Sahavas Co-op Housing Society, Bandra East, Mumbai, Maharashtra Genealogy: Kaluram Bairulal Vaidya (died 1969) Sons: Shankarlal, Maniklal, Babulal, Shivnarayan (Plaintiff) Plaintiff’s Claims: Indore and Mumbai properties are joint family properties. Seeks 1/3rd share in the properties. Challenges the Will executed by Smt. Vimal Vaidya (widow of Babulal) as null and void. Defendants’ Argument: Mumbai property was self-acquired by Babulal and transferred to his widow, Smt. Vimal Vaidya. No territorial jurisdiction of Indore court over Mumbai property. Suit combines unrelate...

Summary: In the case of Rajinder Pal Singh Dhaliwal v. General Public & Others (FAO-9567-2014), the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh, dismissed an appeal against the order of the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, which had rejected the petition for a letter of administration concerning an unregistered will dated 26.01.1990 executed by late Col. Sarwan Singh Dhaliwal. The appellant, Rajinder Pal Singh Dhaliwal, sought to propound the will, but the court found the testimony of attesting witness Malkiat Singh untrustworthy and inconsistent. The court noted discrepancies in Malkiat Singh's statements, including contradictions with his testimony in an earlier civil suit at Patiala (Ex.R-1). The court ruled that the attesting witness’s failure to maintain a consistent and reliable account cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the will. Despite arguments from the appellant’s counsel about the time gap and the limited role of the attesting witness in knowing the will...