Sahayata & Sahayata

Specific Relief Act, 1963  (Act 47/1963) specific Releif Act, 1963: 2018 Amendment in  a glance:   Came into force on 1/3/1964 Part-8 44 Sections and 1 schedule AN act to define and amend the law relating to certain kinds of specific relief. Specific Relief Act, 2018 (18/2018) Assent 1/8/2018                                 Enforcement-1/10/2018 Substituted    Amendment Added new section Section 14 contracts not specifically enforceable Section 6 He or any person -through whom he has been in possession or any person Section 14A Power of Court to engage experts (Opinion of expert shall form part of record of the suit, with permission of court expert can be examined by parties Substituted section 20-substituted pe...

The Hon'ble Supreme Court In the Matter of Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi (2022) The Hon'ble Court has observed that a w oman in a domestic relationship has a right to reside in the shared household even in the absence of any act of domestic violence.

1.JUstice K S   Puttaswamy( Retd.) Vs Union of India (2017) 9 JB-held that aadhar not only gave them a unique identity but also a life dignity.:  2.Right to Privacy as Fundamental right    Social morality also changes form age to age: NALSA Vs UOI 3.Hon'ble Supreme Court is the guardian of Rule of Law: Bejoy Kumar Mohanty Vs Jadu   4.Collective Responsibility- art 75 5.       Trans-gender persons to be persons of the Third gender: National Legal Services Authority Vs UOI 6.        S R Bommai vs UOI: Constitution of India is Federal 7.        Indra Swaheny Vs UOI Cannot be reservation in promotion 8.        Carry forward rule was held to be ultra Vires: Devadasan Vs UOI 9.        Rajeev Kumar Gupta Vs UOI (2016): Persons with disability 10.    499 and 500 of IPC is Constitutional Subramanium Swami Vs UOI 11...

  THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 Act No. 33 of 1989 Total chapter- V                                          Total Section-23 Date of Assent- 11 th September, 1989          Date of Enforcment-20/01/1990 It Extends to the whole of India       Power to make Rule -CG (Sec. 23) Chapter-I Section 1-2 (1 Short title and 2 Definitions) Sec. 2 : Definitions: 2(a) atrocity Means offence Punishable u/s 3 2(bb) Dependent:  Spouse, Children, Parents, Brother and Sister of Victim. 2(bc) Economic Boycott 2(bd) Exclusive Special Court (as define u/s 14) 2(d) Special Court 2(e) Special Public Prosecutor: who has been in practice 7 year u/s 15 2(eb) ...

In the Case of  M/S. SAMAD HOSPITAL & ORS VS. S. MUHAMMED BASHEER & ORS: the Hon'ble NCDRC has Held that Death caused due to Wrong Blood Transfusion is Medical Negligence under Consumer Protection Act. Brief Facts of the Case: The victims in the case of are a married couple, A.K. nazeer and his wife Sajeena, who underwent infertility treatment at Samad Hospital. Sajeena was diagnosed with fibroid uterus and underwent laparoscopic surgery. Following the surgery, Dr. Sathi M. Pillai (a hospital staff doctor) requested a blood transfusion, following which she developed blood transfusion reactions and complications, which were allegedly caused by a mismatch of blood type, i.e. (being given B+ blood instead of O+ blood). Her body was unable to contain the reactions, and she succumbed to her infections.Not Satisfied with the hospital’s negligence, the victims filed a Consumer Complaint before the Hon'ble State Commission, which partially allowed the complaint and ordered the ...

  IN the matter of  Arshad Ahmad & Ors Vs State (NCT of Delhi)  & Anr. vide. W.P. (CRL) 1185/2022 & CRL MA 10056/2022: It was held that quashing of FIR in Matrimonial dispute is welcome.   The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of  Gian Singh Vs State of Punjab, 2012 SC: it was held that it is encouraged to quash the FIR in circumstances wherein  a compromise has been achieved. ;

  In the matter of Levaku Pedda Reddamma Vs Gottumukkala Venkata Subbamma 2022 v ide CA 4096/22 Division Bench: The Hon'ble court held t o deprive a party to the suit not to file documents, even if, there is some delay will lead to denial of justice- The trial court should have imposed some costs rather than to decline the production of the documents itself-rule of procedure are handmaid of justice.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Govt of Maha vs Borse Brothers Engineers and Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 2021 SC (3 Judges Bench): It has been held that provision for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act will apply to appeals u/s 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sunil Lora Vs State of Rajasthan vide  Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 5416/2022 has held that Arya samaj has no business giving marriage certificate. 

The Above question was answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of  Priya Patel vs State of MP. 2006 SC:   In this case  it was held that a woman biologically and legally as per the definition under section 375 of the Indian Penal Code cannot commit rape herself and therefore, she cannot be held liable for gangrape also.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on May 11, 2022, in the matter of S.G. Vombatkere Vs Union of India in WPC No 682 of 2021 Editors Guild of India and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. WPC NO. 552 of 2021 the bench comprising Hon'ble Chief Justice of India N.V. Ramanna, Hon'ble Justice Surya Kant, and Hon'ble Justice Hima Kohli held that all the pending trials, appeals, and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under  Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 be kept in abeyance. Read full Judgment please visit the link given below: https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/470-sg-vombatkere-v-union-of-india-11-may-2022-417199.pdf  

Various Measures for the promotion and development of MSME i.e., Micro, Small, and Medium Enterprises have been taken by the Government of India. MSME sector is in very critical for the overall development of the country. These businesses play a very important role in the economy of a country as they not only generate production but also help in creating opportunities for the younger generation. I am sharing the following measures that have been taken by the Government for swift resolution of non-payment:  As per Act, the buyer has to make payment within 45 days from the date of delivery or availing of services. if he does not make the payment he shall be liable to pay the outstanding along with compounding interest.  HOW TO APPLY AND WHO CAN APPLY:  MSME  SAMADHAAN - Delayed Payments to Micro and Small Enterprises under Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise Development (MSMED) Act, 2006 The MSMED Act, 2006 (Dealing with Delayed Payment)   Related Provision The Mic...

                                  In the Case of Jasdeep Singh Jassu Vs State of Punjan (2021 SC) It was held that mere common intention perse may not attract section 34 IPC without an action in furthrance. 

The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Miscellaneous Application No. 665 of 2021 In SMW(C) No. 3 of 2020 IN RE: COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION : has extended the limitation period for various Suit, Appeal, Application or proceedings. it has also held that the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded: relevant paras are as follows:        " In computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15.03.2020 till 02.10.2021 shall stand excluded. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 15.03.2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 03.10.202" For full details kind visit the below mention link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2021/10651/10651_2021_31_301_30354_Order_23-Sep-2021.pdf

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of  Bharat Kalra vs Raj Kishan Chabra vide CA 3788 OF 2022   passed on 9 May 2022 by Division Bench comprising  Hon'ble Justices Hemant Gupta and V. Ramasubramanian: It was held that the time limit for filing of the Written Statement is not Mandatory. The delay in filing of the Written Statement could very well be compensated with costs. The Hon'ble Court has also referred his Earlier Decision i.e. Kailash Vs Nakhu 2005 (4) SCC 480 Para 3 and 4. 

 In Gautam Navlakha Vs National Investigation Agency (CrA 510 Fo 2021) DB of Hon'ble Justice U U Lalit and KM Joseph has observed that in appropriate cases, the court can order house arrest under section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while ording house arrest court can consider criteria like age, health condition and the antecedents of the accused, the nature of the crime, the need for other reforms of custody and the ability to enforce the terms of the house Arrest. 

  In the Matter of Gautam Navlakha Vs National Investigation Agency : The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that remand order can only be challenged in case remand is absolutely illegal or the remand is afflicted with the vice of lack of jurisdiction, of it is passed in an absolutely mechanical manner.

NO QUASHING OF FIR IN POCSO CASE BY WAY OF COMPROMISE BY VICTIM AFTER ATTAINING MAJORITY : JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD (DELHI HIGH COURT) IN THE MATTER OF DINESH SHARMA VS STATE & ANR.

In the case of Sesh Nath Singh Vs Baidyabati Sheoraphuli Co-operative Bank Ltd (CA No 9198 of 2019) Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there is no bar to exercise by the Court or Tribunal of its discretion to condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in the absence of a formal application

The Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India Comprising Justice Indu Malhotra and Justice Ajay Rastogi in the matter of Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. Versus M/s Navigant Technoloiges Pvt. Ltd. 2021 has held that limitation for filing Petition under section 34 of the arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 Commence from the date of receipt of the signed copy of the arbitral Award by Parteis.

Supreme Court of India source: Google The Hon'ble Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah Supreme Court of India observed that a high court, invoking its powers under article 226 of the constitution of India can quash a fir if the same is found to be an abuse of the process of law. Quashing of FIR- Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 can be invoked if it is found to be an abuse of the process of law. It was also observed that inherent Power/Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and/or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is designed to achieve the salutary purpose that criminal proceedings ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment. 

In the Case of K Akbar Ali Vs K Umar Khan & Ors 2021 Division Bench (Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice Hemant Gupta) Observed that the provision of Order VII Rule 11 Rejection of Plaint are not exhaustive and the court has the inherent power to see that frivolous or vexatious litigations are not allowed to consume the time of the court. 

  Delhi Court Acquitted Priya Ramani defamation case filed by former Union Minister MJ Akbar: Journalist Priya Ramani was acquitted by a Delhi court Wednesday afternoon over a defamation case filed by former Union Minister MJ Akbar, whom she had accused of sexual misconduct in 2018.

Criminal liability of director of the company for dishonour of a cheque The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881  deals with dishonour of a cheque and punishment relating to the dishonour of a cheque due to the insufficiency of funds, signature not matched or stop payment(provides under section 138 of the N.I. Act) . The director of the company also held liable for the offences 138 by them under sections per Section 141(1) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881  imposes criminal liability committed by a company and the director, manager or secretary in charge of the company.  Section 141(2) of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881  imposes criminal liability, if the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to, any neglect on the part of, any director, manager,  any other officer of the company.  Section 141 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (1)  If the person committing an offence under section 138 is a ...