RANJIT GIRI

May 31, 2018 It has been reported that in first of its kind move, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has decided to revoke passports of 5 NRIs against whom Look-out-Circular had been issued. NRI Matrimonial Disputes: Government to Issue LOC against Husbands Evading Arrest In an official statement issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) in April this year, the Ministry had been apprised that in view of augmented incidents of NRI matrimonial disputes, the Government would issue Look-out Circulars (LoCs). The Ministry stated that it has been decided that 5 cases pertaining to the NRI Matrimonial Dispute have been found fit for issuance of Look-out-Circular (LOC) & MWCD will issue those 5 LoCs. LOC for evading arrest-  In criminal matter involving NRI’s, LOC could be issued by the investigating agency in cognizable offences, when the overseas husband is deliberately evading arrest or not appearing in the trial court despite Non Bailable Warrants

May 31, 2018 Case name: Monika Sharma v. Manish Kumar In a recent case, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh transferred divorce petition pending adjudication to place favourable to the Petitioner i.e. wife in view of the Apex Court’s holding that in matrimonial proceedings, it is the wife’s convenience which must be looked into. In the case, the Petitioner wife prayed that the proceedings, against her under  Section 13 (1) (1-a) (1-b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  which are pending adjudication at District Una in Himachal Pradesh be transferred to District Kangra, taking into consideration the fact that petitioner serving as Assistant Professor (Economics) at Government College at Kangar, and that she has a minor school going daughter, who is residing with her. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh made an order in favour of the wife and referred to Supreme Court’s order in the case of  Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Anr. [1] ,  wherein it was held that in matrimonial pro

May 31, 2018 Case name: Y.Venkata Ramana and Two Others vs. Yellaboyani Venkatamma In the instant case, the Written Statement was filed by the respondent/plaintiff nine years after such counter claim had been filed by the petitioners. As per Order VIII Rule 1 CPC, such Written Statement ought to have been filed by the respondent within 30 days from the date of receipt of the Written Statement-cum- counter claim of the petitioners. As per the proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII, the Court normally had power to extend the time for filing such Written Statement by the respondent to the counter claim made by the petitioners only for a period not later than 90 days, that too for reasons to be recorded in writing. In view of the aforesaid and other relevant evidences on record, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh struck off the Written Statement filed by the respondent/plaintiff in answer to the counter claim of the petitioners. The High Court inter alia observed the following: T

May 28, 2018 In a recent case, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh High Court addressed an intriguing concern, whereby the Court stated that irrespective of exemption of information under   Section 8 of RTI Act , a wife is entitled to know the details of salary of her husband. In the case the wife was claiming maintenance from the husband wherein the quantum of maintenance being awarded to the wife was disputable on account of amount of maintenance being paid to the wife. Brief facts of the case : In this case, the Petitioner wife had instituted a case for maintenance and had filed an application under Section 91 of CrPC for a direction to the respondent husband to submit his payslip for determination of proper maintenance amount. Then wife also filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to seek the salary details of the husband. The Central Information Commission (CIC) in the case asked the Central Public Information Officer of Respondent no. 2 i.e. BSNL to fur

May 28, 2018 Case name: Smt. Kusum Lata v. State of U.P. & ors. Date of Judgment: May 18, 2018 The seminal issue that fell for consideration before the Allahabad High Court in the case was   whether a sale deed registered under the   Registration Act, 1908   can be cancelled or set aside by registering authority or by any other authority invoking administrative powers, if the registration is questioned on the count of impersonation/fraud?  Bench’s Verdict The Three-Judge Bench of the Allahabad High Court while arriving at its decision made reference to   Section 69 of the Registration Act, 1908   which entrusts the power on Inspector General to make rules consistent with the Act and pertaining to regulation of registration of instruments and documents in the State. As the Uttar Pradesh Government has not framed any rules under Section 69 for annulment of document, the Allahabad High Court held that Registering Authority cannot annul sale deed and made the following ob

April 06, 2018 In a recent case decided by the High Court of Kerala, the Court elucidated on the appointment of Advocate Commissioner for recording of evidence in marital disputes and the caution to be exercised by Courts while issuing Commission. The Court remarked that remarked that  “one should be very careful before permitting the issue of a commission which will deprive the other side of the great advantage of having a witness cross-examined before the face of the Court itself.” Relevant Law: Under Section 75 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), the Court has been conferred with the power to issue commissions for incidental proceedings like examine any person, to make local investigation, to examine or adjust accounts, to make partition or to hold a scientific, technical or expert investigation, to conduct sale of property or perform any ministerial act. However, such power is not absolute and is subject to conditions or limitations. Apart from the said statutory p

May 29, 2018 Former Supreme Court Judge Justice RK Agrawal has been appointed as the President of National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission (NCDRC). Justice RK Agrawal retired as Judge of the Supreme Court on May 04, 2018. Justice Agrawal succeeds Justice D.K. Jain who retires from the Chair of NCDRC President on May 31. Justice R.K. Agrawal was one of the Judges in the Constitution Bench Verdict of landmark right to privacy case  (Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (retd.) v. Union of India).

May 29, 2018 The Election Commission of India (ECI) in media reports has clarified that it does not contradicts with Central Information Commission’s (CIC) directive on Political parties covered under the purview of RTI Act. The ECI stated that it goes by the CIC order of 3 rd  June, 2013 that   national parties would be public authorities for the purposes of RTI Act   and in pursuance of this all the information about the contributions received by them as well as their annual audited accounts, as and when submitted to the Commission are put in public domain. The ECI further remarked that as regards consultation with leaders of different political parties before presenting electoral bonds is concerned, this issue has been transferred to Ministry of Finance as it might concern them and not the Election Commission of India.

May 29, 2018 In a recent case  (Rajeev Nayan Singh v. State of Bihar) , the High Court of Patna took a strong note on the prevalent practice of filing application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 of CrPC  (discretion for granting bail to person apprehending arrest)  in cases where the FIR has been registered only for bailable offences. While condemning such acts by Advocates and Lower Courts in disposing bail cases, the High Court made the following observations in the case: Also read  All you Need to Know about Bail Application in India That the right to claim bail granted by Section 436 of the Cr. P.C. in a “bailable offence” is an absolute and indefeasible right. In such case, there is no question of discretion in granting bail as the words of Section 436 are imperative. Thus, there is no question of discretion in such matters. With reference to the facts of the case at hand wherein FIR had been registered against the accused only for bailable offences, the

May 29, 2018 In a recent case decided by the High Court of Allahabad has opined that   where the consent itself is disputed and is not said to be genuine the same can be assailed by way of appeal. In the case, the Appellant wife appealed against decree of divorce passed by the Family Court under Section 13B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955   (Divorce by Mutual Consent)   on the ground that the divorce decree was allegedly obtained by fraud by getting the signatures of the appellant-wife on the petition by coercion. Here it would be relevant to throw some light on the law prevailing in context of appeal against decree passed by consent of parties. Section 19(2) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 prohibits filing of an appeal against a decree passed with the consent of the parties. Hence, the intrinsic issue that fell for consideration by the Court was   whether an appeal would lie under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against a decree passed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Ma

May 25, 2018 In a case  (Siddarth Dalmia & anr. v. Union of India & Ors.)  recently taken up by Three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court headed by the Chief Justice Dipak Misra, the Apex Court has directed the High Court not to entertain any petition relating to Reserve Bank of India’s Circular on “Prohibition on Dealing in Virtual Currencies” dated April 06, 2018. The RBI’s Circular can be accessed  here . Here it would be pertinent to mention that the RBI in the Circular prohibited the entities regulated by the RBI to not deal in Virtual Currencies including Bitcoins or provide services for facilitating any person or entity in dealing with or settling VCs like maintaining accounts, registering, trading, settling, clearing, giving loans against virtual tokens, accepting them as collateral, opening accounts of exchanges dealing with them and transfer / receipt of money in accounts relating to purchase/ sale of VCs. Even in December last year, the RBI had cautioned cu

May 21, 2018 Case name: Kavita Manikikar v. Central Bureau of Investigation, Mumbai In a recent case, the Two-Judge Bench of the Bombay High Court took strong note of conduct of CBI Officers in arresting woman after sunset i.e. in violation of  Section 46 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure  which mandates that except in exceptional circumstances a woman shall not be arrested after sunset and before sunrise. What are the Rights of an Arrested Person? In the case, the Petitioner who was arrested by the CBI at 8.00 PM approached the Court seeking a declaration that her arrest was contrary to  Section 46 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The petitioner also prayed for a direction to initiate inquiry against the Officers who arrested her in violation of the statutory provision. The observations made by the Bombay High Court are as under: That  Section 46 (4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure  came to be introduced on recommendation of the Law Commissi

May 22, 2018 In the case, the Apex Court had taken  suo-motu  cognizance of a letter addressed to Chief Justice of India by Prajwala, an organization. The Court on reading of the letter was of the opinion that the issue enumerated therein is of great public importance, an accordingly a Petition was registered by the Court on the basis of the contents of the letter. The letter narrated about two videos which showcased incidents of rape and gang rape of young girl and woman, the incidents were video recorded and were disseminated through WhatsApp. Thus, apprising the Supreme Court of such heinous crimes, the organization prayed the Chief Justice to adopt mechanism that would curb such incidents particularly recording and then distributing such video recordings. In view of the aforesaid, the Supreme Court constituted a Committee to advise the Court on the feasibility of ensuring that videos depicting rape, gang rape and child pornography are not available for circulati

In a recent landmark case of  Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur [13] ,  the Supreme Court made a notable observation by holding that 6 months waiting/ cooling –off period as contemplated under  Section 13B(2) of the Act  is not mandatory. The Supreme Court held that the  period of interregnum or cooling off period of 6-18 months provided under  Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955   is not mandatory but a directory provision and can be waived off under certain circumstances. The Court further observed that in view of this, Courts can exercise its discretion depending on the facts and circumstances of each case and waive off the stipulated period where there is no possibility of resuming cohabitation and there are chances of alternative rehabilitation. In this case, the parties were living separately since 2008. In 2017 the parties arrived at a settlement and applied for divorce by mutual consent. In the case, the parties prayed the Court to waive off the period of 6 mo