slcdailylaw
  • Home
  • Topic Search
  • Advanced Search
  • Citation Search
  • Bookmarks
  • Login
  1. Home
  2. Latest Cases
(1) ORISSA
Demand notice

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—Dishonour of cheque—Statutory demand notice—Validity—Compensation—Held: Compliance with proviso (b) to Section 138 requires the statutory demand notice to clearly and correctly specify the amount covered by the dishonoured cheque. A notice does not become invalid merely because, in addition to the cheque amount, it also claims interest, litigation expenses or other legally recoverable amounts, provided the cheque amount is distinctly identifiable. Likewise, a single consolidated notice in respect of more than one dishonoured cheque is legally permissible if the amount relating to each cheque is separately and accurately mentioned. Any material discrepancy in the cheque amount demanded, however, vitiates the statutory notice and the prosecution founded ther...

(2) ORISSA
Maintenance

A. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Sections 20 and 22—Maintenance and compensation—Quantum—Held: Determination of maintenance is not capable of precise mathematical calculation and necessarily involves judicial discretion. Where the husband, a retired employee, failed to establish any ground warranting interference and the evidence on record justified the relief, the award of monthly maintenance of ₹6,000 to the wife, ₹3,000 to the minor son and ₹2,000 towards alternative accommodation was upheld as reasonable. (Paras 14 to 16) B. Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Section 22—Compensation for domestic violence—Reduction of quantum—Held: Compensation under Section 22 may be awarded for mental torture and emotional distress caused by domestic vio...

(3) ORISSA
Bail

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Bail—SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989—Section 14-A—Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 483—In appeal against refusal of bail, Court granted bail considering that the occurrence arose from a sudden quarrel without premeditation, a counter-case had been registered, appellants had also sustained injuries, investigation was complete, trial had not commenced despite filing of the charge-sheet, prolonged incarceration had occurred, and there was no criminal antecedent or flight risk—Apprehension of witness tampering held capable of being addressed through appropriate conditions. B. Constitution of India, 1950—Articles 21 & 22(1)—Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023—Section 47—Communication of grounds of arrest&mda...

(4) ORISSA
Kidnapping

A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973—Section 374(2)—Appeal against conviction—Victim turning hostile—Conviction based solely on circumstantial and medical evidence—Where the prosecutrix, being the star witness, turns hostile and does not support the prosecution case, and there is no independent eyewitness or other reliable evidence establishing kidnapping or sexual assault, a conviction founded principally upon circumstantial and medical evidence cannot be sustained—In the absence of trustworthy evidence connecting the accused with the alleged offences under Sections 363, 366, and 376(2)(n) IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act, the conviction is liable to be set aside. (Paras 26, 33, 34) B. Penal Code, 1860—Sections 363 and 366—Kidnapping and abduction—Voluntary departure by victim&...

(5) ORISSA
Criminal Revision

A. Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and 34—Special Marriage Act, 1954—Marriage certificate obtained by fraud—Forgery of signatures—Cognizance—Held: Where the complaint alleged that the marriage certificate was procured by forging the complainant's signatures and the handwriting expert's opinion prima facie supported the allegation, the Magistrate was justified in taking cognizance of offences under Sections 420, 468, 471, 120B and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the stage of cognizance, the Court is only required to ascertain whether the material on record discloses a prima facie case and not to undertake a meticulous evaluation of the evidence. Consequently, quashing of the criminal proceedings was held to be unwarranted. (Paras 5, 10 to 12) B. Criminal Procedure Code, 19...

(6) ORISSA

A. Odisha Land Reforms Act, 1960—S.6—Rights of Raiyats—A raiyat holding land settled for agricultural purposes under a valid lease acquires permanent, heritable, and transferable rights in the land, subject to statutory restrictions, and is entitled to recognition of such status under the Act. [Para 31(i)] B. Record of Rights—‘Dakhal Satwa Sunya’, ‘Sthitiban’ and ‘Pattadar’—Legal Effect—The expression ‘Dakhal Satwa Sunya’ denotes a non-occupancy raiyat with limited rights, whereas ‘Sthitiban’ signifies a settled raiyat enjoying permanent, heritable, and transferable interests—The description ‘Pattadar’ relates to leasehold tenure, and incorrect recording under these categories may unlawfully curtail proprietary and constitu...

(7) ORISSA
Criminal Revision

A. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138 read with Section 148—Criminal Revision Against Conviction—Pre-deposit of Fine/Compensation—Held: Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act empowers only the Appellate Court to direct deposit of a minimum percentage of the fine or compensation during the pendency of an appeal against conviction—The provision has no application to criminal revision proceedings—A Revision Court cannot insist upon deposit of the fine or compensation as a condition precedent either for entertaining the revision or for granting interim protection against execution of the conviction—Accordingly, no coercive action was directed to be taken against the revision petitioner for non-deposit of the amount awarded by the Appellate Court during pendency of the revision. (Paras...

Revision allowed
(8) ORISSA
Enhancement of maintenance

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Section 24—Pendente Lite Maintenance—Enhancement of Maintenance During Pendency of Divorce Proceedings—Interference by High Court—Held: Where the Family Court enhanced pendente lite maintenance payable to the wife and minor child from the date of the application, and the husband challenged the enhancement as excessive, the High Court, considering the submissions regarding the quantum of maintenance and the petitioner’s earning capacity, granted interim protection against enforcement of the enhancement order subject to deposit of Rs.5,00,000/- before the Family Court within the stipulated time—Notice issued to the wife and further operation of the impugned order stayed conditionally pending adjudication of the challenge. (Paras 2–8) ...

(9) ORISSA
Maintenance

A. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 125—Maintenance to Wife and Minor Child—Effect of Decree for Restitution of Conjugal Rights—Held: Grant of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in favour of the husband does not, by itself, disentitle the wife and minor child from claiming maintenance under Section 125 CrPC—Non-compliance with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights cannot be a ground to deny maintenance, having regard to the social welfare object of Section 125, which is intended to prevent vagrancy and destitution of the wife and child. (Paras 2–3) B. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973—Section 125—Maintenance Order—Revisional Jurisdiction—Scope of Interference—Held: A revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence merely because another view is possib...

(10) ORISSA
Matrimonial Proceeding

A. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 9, 13 and 24—Matrimonial Proceedings—Recording of Evidence—Premature Posting for Arguments—Held: Where matrimonial proceedings under Sections 9 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act were pending and the wife undertook to appear for re-cross-examination, the Family Court could not proceed directly to final arguments before completion of evidence—The order posting the matter for arguments was modified and the Family Court was directed to first conclude the evidence, including re-cross-examination of the wife, and thereafter proceed with consideration of the pending applications and final hearing. (Paras 6–8). B. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955—Sections 9, 13 and 24—Pendente Lite Maintenance—Withdrawal of Challenge and Expeditious Disposal of Matrimonial ...

slcdailylaw

Tomar Publication

561, Sec-2, Jagriti Vihar, Meerut-250004

0121 3561932, +91 9458 5523 61

tomarpublication999@gmail.com

Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy

© SLC Daily law all right reserved.

Cookies Required

Please enable cookies in your browser settings to continue.