https://www.facebook.com/109197031419090/

Legato, Ghaziabad (2026)

08/09/2021

https://www.instagram.com/p/CTkR-UQJJ-4/

08/09/2021

On Tuesday, while overturning an Order of Allahabad High Court granting Bail to a Murder accused, the Supreme Court explains the “importance of judgment; the purpose of judgment; and what should be contained in the judgment.

According to the court, a judgment should be clear in terms of facts and law, as well as submissions, findings, reasoning, and the ultimate relief granted. The bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah observed that what the court says and how it says it is just as important as what the court decides.

In this case, the bench noted, referring to the High Court order, that it had not considered the seriousness of the offence and the gravity of the accusation leveled against the accused and their antecedents, as well as their conduct by threatening witnesses during trial and even afterward.

The Court observed that it is concerned that the order granting bail to the accused pending appeal lacks complete clarity on which parts of the judgment and order are submissions and which are findings/reasons. It does not even include the Public Prosecutor’s submissions opposing the bail pending appeal. The State filed a detailed counter-affidavit opposing the bail pending appeal, which the High Court never even mentioned. The High Court’s Order on the application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. and of the application for bail pending appeal cannot be approved. It is unfortunate that we are required by this judgment to observe the importance of judgment, the purpose of judgment, and what should be contained in the judgment “, the court noted.

What Is Judgment?

“Judgment” refers to a judicial opinion that tells the story of the case, including what the case is about, how the court is resolving the case, and why, according to the court.

A “judgment” is any decision made by a court on a question or questions or issue between the parties to properly before a court proceeding. It is also defined as a court’s decision or sentence in a legal proceeding, as well as the reasoning of the judge that leads to his decision. The term “judgment” refers to a judicial opinion or decision. The term “judgment” refers to a judicial opinion or decision.

The Purpose of Judgment

According to Roslyn Atkinson, J., Supreme Court of Queensland, there are four purposes for any written judgment:

to spell out the judge’s own thoughts;
to explain your decision to the parties;
to communicate the reasons for the decision to the public; and
to provide reasons for an appeal court to consider.
The bench further said that it is not enough for a decision to be correct; it must also be reasonable, logical, and simple to understand. The judicial opinion should be written in such a way that it elucidates and proves that the verdict is righteous and judicious. What the court says and how the court says it is just as important as what the court decides.

What should be included in the Judgment?

The court went on to say that every judgment should include four basic components:

A statement of material (relevant) facts,
legal issues or questions,
deliberation to reach a decision, and
the ratio or conclusive decision.
Judgment must be consistent, systematic, and logically organized.

08/09/2021

Today, a Raipur Court had sent Chhattisgarh CM Bhupesh Baghel’s father Nand Kumar Baghel to judicial custody for fifteen days for allegedly making derogatory remarks against the Brahmin community.

As per the report by an English daily, the FIR was registered for allegedly spreading hatred in the society and for creating tensions.

The said complaint was registered at the DD Nagar Police Station, Raipur. It is alleged that Bhaghel termed Brahmin’s as foreigners and they should either reform or go to the Volga from Ganga.

When the current CM Bhupesh Baghel was questioned on the issue, he stated that he respects his father as a son, but if his mistake would disturb public order, then it cannot be ignored.

08/09/2021

Granting relief to Bollywood actor Salman Khan, a Bombay Civil Court has ordered temporary restraint on access to an online mobile game titled 'Selmon Bhoi', allegedly based on the hit and run case connected with the actor.

The Court noted that the make of the game, the images and the mechanical features have been given "impressionistic resemblance" to Salman Khan. On this note, it observed,

"When the plaintiff has not given any consent for installing, preparing and running such game which is very similar to his identity and the case which was against him, certainly his right to privacy is being deprived and is also tarnishing his image."

The judge, KM Jaiswal, has granted a temporary injunction in the matter, restraining Parody Studios Pvt. Ltd from disseminating, launching, re-launching and recreating the game or any other content relating to the actor. The injunction also restrains the defendants from making any derogatory remarks against Salman Khan, by exploiting and making available the game or in any manner whatsoever which tends to injure him or his family members in any manner.

Further, they have been directed to immediately take-down/ block/ disable access to the game from Google Play Store and all other platforms.

The matter has been posted on September 20, 2021.

Background

Khan had moved a Bombay Court against one Parody Studios Pvt Ltd and its Directors, Google LLC and Google India Pvt Ltd , seeking various injunctive and other reliefs concerning the game titled "Selmon Bhoi" available on Google Play Store
Filed through DSK Legal, the suit argued that the game "Selmon Bhoi" is phonetically the same Salman Khan's popular name amongst his fans, i.e., "Salman Bhai". It was further submitted that the images displayed in-game appears to be a caricature version of Khan and recreate the alleged events of the Hit and Run case and Blackbuck case involving him, which are sub-judice before Courts. Objections were raised on the name and make of the game with the use of imagery, alleging it to be a clear insinuation towards Khan beyond any reasonable doubt.
It is Khan's case that the defendants have intentionally gained a commercial advantage by exploiting his personality rights, without seeking his consent. Such use has tarnished his reputation and goodwill by displaying factually incorrect and misleading information, which remains outside the purview of Article 19 of the Constitution of India.

Alleging injurious falsehood, Khan sought enforcement of his right to privacy and the right to reputation guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. On the question of recreation of the alleged hit and run case and the blackbuck case, it was contend that as the matters remain sub-judice, its reference in the game is interfering with the administration of justice.

Findings

Noting that the game is open to the public and that Khan's permission has not been sought, the Court held that it violates his right to privacy, further tarnishing his image. The Court remarked,

"It is clear that right to privacy is implicit in the right to life and property guaranteed to the citizens of this country by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution."
It observed that the defendant-studio had used the identity of a leading Bollywood celebrity for their commercial gain. Directing injunction restraining the defendants from further engaging in the game involving Khan's identity, the Court opined that as he is a widely recognized celebrity, the use of his unaided identification without his consent necessitates a restraint.
Granting time to the defendant for filing of reply, the Court noted that if no relief is granted, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss, which cannot be monetarily compensated.

It ordered,

"Till the defendants file the reply and as the prima facie case is made out by the plaintiff, the balance of convenience also lies in his favour and if no ad- interim reliefs are granted the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss which can not compensated in terms of money."

Khan was represented by DSK team comprising Anand Desai, Chandrima Mitra, Parag Khandhar and Prachi Garg. Advocate Pradeep Gandhy appeared before the Court.

Case Title: Salman Khan v. Parody Studios Pvt Ltd and Ors

25/08/2021

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court laid down the parameters that High Courts must follow when considering an accused’s bail application.

A Bench of Justices DY Chandrachud and MR Shah ordered that the following factors be considered by courts:

Whether there are prima facie or reasonable grounds to suspect that the accused committed the crime;
The nature and seriousness of the accusation;
The severity of the punishment if convicted;
The risk of the accused fleeing if released on bail;
The accused’s character, behaviour, and standing, including his or her antecedents;
The likelihood that the offence will be repeated;
Reasonable fear that the witnesses will be influenced;
There is a risk that the grant of bail will jeopardise the administration of justice.
These instructions were issued in a decision in which the Court set aside the bail granted by the High Court to a person accused of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The Court held that releasing the accused on bail would endanger the appellant’s safety and increase the likelihood of a repeat offence.

21/08/2021

kalyan singh ex CM of UP is no more

21/08/2021

The Bombay High Court has temporarily stayed a defamation case against the makers of the movie Gangubai Kathiawadi including actress Aliya Bhatt and director Sanjay Leela Bhansali.

Justice Revati Mohite Dere issued notice to the respondents and granted stay on proceedings before the Trial Court till 7th September, in quashing plea filed u/s 482 of CrPC. The order reads that till the next date of hearing, proceedings before the trial court has stayed.

The adoptive son of Kathiawadi had filed a defamation case u/s 499, 500 and 502 of IPC, and the Court issued process and summoned the author of the book and the producers.

Before the Magistrate, the original complainant had stated that the chapter in the book related to Kathiawadi was defamatory and showed his mother in poor light.

After the movie’s promo was released, the complainant approached the Court and submitted that his mother was shown as a pr******te and mafia queen. He also objected to the character smoking a bidi in the video.

Contentions:-

Senior Counsel Aabad Ponda who appeared for Bhansali argued that the complainant suppressed material facts from the Court. He stated that a Civil Court had dismissed a similar defamation suit in February 2021.

It was also contended that promos of the movie were not defamatory, and the movie is based on a book released in 2011. He stated that no action had been taken regarding the book as well.

The counsel argued that the twin test of defamation as mentioned in Section 499 IPC was not satisfied. A reference was made to Subramanium Swamy vs Union of India in this regard. It was also stated that the moviemakers were not even aware of the existence of a son.

Court’s Ruling:-

The Court ruled that the complainant has failed to prove that he was the adoptive son of Gangubai. The Court further stated that the law of the principle of torts states that an action dies with the person in defamation matters.

Lastly, the Court opined that the plaintiff has not claimed the relief of being declared the adoptive son of the deceased (Gangubai) or that he suffered any legal injury.

16/08/2021

Recently, the Apex Court observed that Res Judicata couldn’t be a ground for rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11d of CPC.

A Bench of Hon’ble Justice Chandrachud and Hon’ble Justice MR Shah observed that since the adjudication of a plea of res judicata requires consideration of pleadings, issues and decision in a previous suit, then such a plea would be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 11d and only the statement would be perused.

In the instant case, the defendant had filed an application for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC as the suit was barred by res judicata as grounds related to the validity of sale deed and title issue was raised in a previous suit. While rejecting the application, the Court stated that the issue of res judicata couldn’t be decided in Order 7 Rule 11 application has to be decided in the suit. The High Court also dismissed the Revision plea filed against the trial court order.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Court observed that Order 7 Rule 11(d) of CPC provided that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint barred by any law.

The Bench placed reliance on KT Eshwara Shakti Bhog Food Industries Ltd vs Central Bank of India and Soumitra Kumar Sen vs Shyamal Kumar Sen and observed the following:-

To reject a plaint because it is barred by law, only the plaint would be referred to.
While deciding the merits of the application, the defence made by the defendant should not be considered.
To see if a suit is barred by res judicata, the previous suit had to be decided, issue of the subsequent suit should be issues of the instant suit, the parties of the suit shall be the same in the title.
Since plea adjudication requires consideration of plea, issues of the previous plea would be beyond the scope of Order 7 Rule 1, and statements in plea will have to be perused.
After going through the plaint, the Court observed that it doesn’t disclose any fact to conclude that it should be rejected on the ground that it is barred by res judicata. The Court upheld the trial court order. The Bench clarified that it is not expressing any opinion if the subsequent suit was barred by res judicata.

16/08/2021

The Allahabad High Court at Lucknow recently laid down that the High Court may use the power under Section 482 CrPC to invalidate a judgement of conviction passed by it in a Criminal Revision in a Cheque bouncing case, recognising subsequent compromise of the case by the disputing parties.

While hearing a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the Court allowed the compounding of an offence committed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

“Merely because the litigation has progressed to the revisional stage, or even beyond that stage, the nature and character of the offence do not change automatically, and it would be incorrect to hold that at the revisional stage, the nature of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act should be treated as if it falls under table-II of Section 320 IPC,” the bench of Justice C.D. Singh stated.

The Bench went on to say that this concept would not benefit any criminal under any other legislation if other applicable independent provisions existed, because the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was distinct from the typical offences punished under Chapter XVII of the IPC (i.e. the offences qua property).

Background

A petition under Section 482 CrPC was filed with the prayer to compound the offence committed under Section 138 and to vacate the petitioner’s one-year sentence.

The petitioner and opposite party no.2 had a business relationship, during which the petitioner wrote two cheques of Rs.1,00,000/- each in favour of opposite party no.2, both of which bounced due to inadequate funds.

Following that, a complaint case was filed, and the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to one year of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs.3,00,000/- by the court.

The petitioner subsequently filed a Criminal Appeal with the Additional Sessions Judge in Faizabad, and he deposited Rs.1,000,000/- at the time of the hearing (one lakh).

Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed in December of 2020, and the petitioner sought a Criminal Revision before the High Court, which was also denied at the admission stage.

Following the rejection of the criminal revision, the petitioner and the opposing party no.2 reached an agreement through his father.

On January 22, 2021, the petitioner and opposing party no.2 reached an amicable arrangement, which was also recorded.

As a result, the accused-petitioner petitioned the high court under Section 482 to compound the offence and vacate the prison sentence.

Contentions:

Counsels for the Petitioner, Mr Naved Ali and Sandeep Yadav submitted that the petition under Section 482 CrPC was maintainable following the revision’s dismissal on merit. They relied on the Gujarat High Court’s decision in Kripal Singh Pratap Singh Ori vs. Salvinder Kaur Hardip Singh.

It was also argued that because the purpose of the NI Act was primarily compensating rather than punitive, section 147 of the NI Act would supersede section 320 of the Cr.P.C. This was regardless of the point at which the parties were negotiating with the Court’s permission.

Decision:

The Court recognised that inherent powers under Section 482 may only be invoked when the litigant had no other recourse and not when the Act provided a specific remedy.

The Court also refused to agree with the notion that when the adjudication of a criminal offence had reached the state of revisional level, a compromise could only be compounded without the permission of the court if the High Court or Court of Sessions granted permission for such purpose.

As a result, the Petition under Section 482 was allowed and consequently, the conviction and sentence set aside.

The Court then ordered the petitioner to pay Rs.5000/- in costs to the respondent – the State. In addition, the petitioner’s deposit of one lakh rupees was directed to be released in favour of opposing party no.2.

16/08/2021

Recently, the Kerala High Court directed the State government to make separate forms for registration of deaths and births of children born to u***d or single mothers through the ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology), which does not contain fields for name and other details of the father.

Justice Sathish Ninan directed that such forms should not have any fields about the name and other details of the father.

The judgement reads that the right of an u***d mother or single parent as conceived by ART and forms requiring the father’s name was violative of the fundamental right to privacy, dignity and law.

As per the Court, the law should evolve with time, so the right of liberty and privacy of petitioners and others is preserved.

Background:-

The petitioner in the instant case was a single woman who chose to get pregnant through the IVF method.

She challenged the Kerala Registration of Birth & Death Rules that required the father’s details for registering a child’s death or birth and mentioning in death or birth certificate.

Before the Court, her counsel (Aruna A) submitted that the petitioner could not be required to provide the father’s name as the identity of the s***m donor is kept anonymous, and it was not even disclosed to the petitioner. It was further submitted that such a requirement violated the right to privacy and was ultra vires to the Registration of Births and Deaths Act.

On the other hand, the counsel for the government S Krishna, drew the Court’s attention to the fact that The Assisted Reproductive Technology Regulation Bill has been introduced in Lok Sabha.

On perusal of the Bill, the Bench noted that even though the Bill was not yet a statute, a single woman’s right to conceive through ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) is recognised. Therefore confidentiality should be maintained.

The Court placed reliance on Apex Court’s judgement in KS Puttaswamy vs Union of India, wherein it held that personal choice that governs way of life was intrinsic to privacy. It includes decisional autonomy like that of reproduction. Therefore the Court ruled that unless compelled by law, the identity of the s***m would fall within the definition of the right to privacy.

The Court directed the State Government and Chief Registrar of Birth and Death to have separate forms for registering death and birth certificates in cases related to birth through the ART method for u***d or single mothers.

14/08/2021

On Thursday, the Supreme Court stayed the grant of two week’s furlough to r**e convict Asaram’s son Narayan Sai who is serving a life term in a 2013 r**e case.

The Bench of Hon’ble Justice MR Shah and DY Chandrachud passed the order in a plea filed by the State of Gujarat against a June order passed by the Gujarat High Court that granted the respondent furlough for two weeks.

In its order, the Court recorded that the order initially stayed for three weeks, and after the State’s request, it was extended to 13th August, and it has not been implemented yet.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the petitioner state and submitted that as per Apex Court’s judgement in the Suresh Pandurang Darvarkar case, the furlough was not a matter of right. As per Rule 17 of Bombay Furlough and Parole Rules, there is no legal right to furlough, and it is subjected to certain conditions.

SG Mehta further stated that as per clauses (4) and (6) of Rule 4 = furlough may be denied if the Commissioner of Police or DM opines that it might disturb the public tranquillity or law and order situation.
While referring to the respondent’s release on furlough in December 2020 was uneventful, and there was no problem in apprehending him. Also, there was nothing on record to suggest that his release caused any law and order situation.

The Court noted that the proviso to Rule 3(2) states that prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment might be furloughed every year after completing seven-year imprisonment. The Court agreed whether the word every year in the Rule means a calendar year or the difference between two furloughs.

Observing this, the Court issued notices in the case.

14/08/2021

Naresh Kumar Laka (Additional District Judge) has written to PM Modi demanding a ban on PUBG India and Garena Free Fire in India. He states that such games have a terrible impact on the youth of the country.
Laka further stated that the country’s population applauded the government’s decision to ban PUBG Mobile, which had a disastrous impact on children’s development. However, PUBG Mobile and Garena Free Fire are now having the same negative impact on youth.The Judge is a father to two children, and in his letter to PM Modi, he stated that the games mentioned above are freely available on Google Play Store and should be banned immediately
While giving the example of China, the Judge stated that there are laws that limit gaming done by children in China. The government has allowed children to play such games for only 90 minutes a day, which is extended to 180 minutes during the holidays. According to Laka, India should take similar precautions as it is necessary for children’s ‘rightful growth’.

Incidentally, some time back, a Nepal MP also sought a ban on Garena Free Fire and PUBG Mobile in India

Legato

08/09/2021

08/09/2021

08/09/2021

08/09/2021

25/08/2021

21/08/2021

21/08/2021

16/08/2021

16/08/2021

16/08/2021

14/08/2021

14/08/2021

Address

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category