Yeshwant Legal Associates

04/11/2021

卐 🛑 शुभ दिपावली 🛑 卐

✨🏮✨

मी व माझ्या कुटुंबियांच्या वतीने आपणास व आपल्या परिवारातील सर्वांना दिवाळीच्या हार्दिक हार्दिक शुभेच्छा...
रांगोळीच्या सप्तरंगात सुखाचे दिप उजळू दे,
लक्ष्मीच्या पावलांनी घर सुख समृध्दीने भरू दे.
दीपावलीच्या शुभक्षणांनी आपली सारी स्वप्न साकार व्हावी,
ही दिवाळी आपल्यासाठी एक अनमोल आठवण ठरावी, आणि त्या आठवणीने आपलं आयुष्य अधिकाधिक सुंदर व्हावं,
धनलक्ष्मी, धान्यलक्ष्मी, धैर्यलक्ष्मी, शौर्यलक्ष्मी, विद्यालक्ष्मी, कार्यलक्ष्मी, विजयालक्ष्मी, राजलक्ष्मी..!
या दिपावलीत या अष्टलक्ष्मी तुमच्यावर धनाचा वर्षाव करोत…
दिवाळीच्या लक्ष लक्ष शुभेच्छा..

💐💐💐💐💐💐💐
अँड. राजेश टेकाळे, हायकोर्ट मुंबई -
🪔🪔🪔🪔🪔🪔🪔
https://wa.me/message/WOJSDOHKTZQ3M1

🍁🙏🍁

24/09/2021

09/08/2021

The Supreme Court observed that deposit of fine amount cannot be made a condition precedent for hearing revision petition under Section 397 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

In this case, the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, was sentenced to fine in the sum of Rs.6,00,000/-. It was also stipulated that the stipulation that in the event of default in payment of fine, she would undergo simple imprisonment for six months. An amount of Rs.5,90,000/- was directed to be paid to the complainant as compensation in terms of Section 357 Cr.P.C. and the balance amount was to be remitted to the State. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by the accused.

The High Court, while considering the Revision Petition filed by the accused, observed that, unless the fine amount was deposited, the accused would not be entitled to press into service the hearing of criminal revision petition. It was ordered that the criminal revision petition shall not be entertained unless the fine amount is deposited by the accused.

"We are clearly of the view that the High Court could not have made the deposit of fine amount a condition precedent for the purpose of hearing the revision petition. As to what order is to be passed ultimately in the revision petition is a matter entirely different and that would depend on the examination of the matter in terms of the requirements of revisional jurisdiction but, in any case, depositing of fine amount could not have been made a condition precedent for the purpose of even hearing of the revision petition so filed by the appellant.", the bench said agreeing with the accused-appellant contention that the High Court was not justified in imposing a condition of pre-deposit of the fine amount.

While setting aside the order, the bench observed that the High Court may assign a reasonable priority to the revision petition and make an endeavour to take a final decision on the same expeditiously.

Case: R. Kalai Selvi vs. Bheemappa ; CrA 747 OF 2021
Citation: LL 2021 SC 361
Coram: Justices Vineet Saran and Dinesh Maheshwari
Counsel: Adv Shiv Kumar Pandey, AOR Dharmaprabhas Law Associates, for appellant, AOR Rajeev Kumar Bansal for respondent

05/08/2021

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a6576664a9326024ad72dc5

COMPANY LAW BOARD
NCLT REPORTED JUDGEMENT

Get free access to the complete judgment in Vivek Gupta v. Soham Metals Pvt. Ltd. on CaseMine.

03/08/2021

Police is not recovery agent therefore recovery of Amount is not a bar to grant bail..

It is well settled in a plethora of decisions of the Apex Court that criminal proceedings are not for realization of disputed dues. The factors to be taken into consideration, while considering an application for bail are the nature of accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and the nature of the materials relied upon by the prosecution; reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witnesses or apprehension of threat to the complainant or the witnesses; reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the time of trial or the likelihood of his abscondence; character behaviour and standing of the accused; and the circumstances which are peculiar or the accused and larger interest of the public or the State and similar other considerations. A criminal court, exercising jurisdiction to grant bail/anticipatory bail, is not expected to act as a recovery agent to realise the dues of the complainant, and that too, without any trial ( see Dilip Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2021 SCC OnLine 40).

29/07/2021

Nawab Mir Barkat Ali Khan vs. Nawab Zulinquar Jahh Bahadur
and others (AIR 1975 A.P. 187 at 190), the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court on the aspect of granting or refusing to grant a temporary injunction held as

follows:
“It is well settled that the grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is
covered by three well established principles viz.,
(1) Whether the petitioners have made out a Prima facie case
(2) Whether the balance of convenience is in their
favour i.e., whether it could cause greater inconvenience to them if the injunction is not granted than the inconvenience which the opposite party or persons claiming through the opposite party would be put to if the temporary injunction is granted
(3) Whether the petitioners would suffer irreparable injury with the first condition as sine qua non atleast two conditions should be satisfied by the petitioner
conjunctively and a mere proof of one of the three conditions does not entitle the petitioners to obtain a temporary injunction in their favour.”

24/07/2021

12 वी परिक्षा अर्ज न भरू शकलेल्या विध्यार्थिनीला हायकोर्टातून न्याय.

राज्य माध्यमिक व उच्च माध्यमिक परीक्षा मंडळाने मार्च २०२१ मध्ये १२ वी परिक्षा अर्ज भरण्यासाठी आॅनलाईन पद्धतीने अर्ज दाखल करण्यासाठी ४ एप्रिल पर्यंत मुदत दिली होती. एका विद्यार्थ्यीनीला आधारकार्ड नसल्यामुळे Online अर्जच भरता आला नाही. आधार कार्ड विना तिने अर्ज कसा भरावा म्हणून काॅलेज मध्ये चौकशी केली. काॅलेज च्या वतीने विना आधारकार्ड अर्ज काॅलेज मार्फत पाठविता येईल असे सांगितले. तथापी तिचा अर्ज पाठवून ही तिला हाॅलटिकीट आलेच नाही.

दरम्यानच्या काळात करोना प्रकोपामूळे ११ जून ला परिक्षाच रद्द करण्यात आली. ६ जुलै २०२१ रोजी १२वीच्या मुलांचा निकाल १०वीचे मार्क ३०%, ११ वीचे मार्क ३०% व १२ वीच्या काॅलेज मधील अंतर्गत परिक्षा यातील ४०% गुण पकडून १२ वीच्या मुलांचे निकाल जाहीर करू असे महाराष्ट्र राज्य माध्यमिक व उच्च माध्यमिक परीक्षा मंडळातर्फे जाहीर करण्यात आले.

दिनांक 6 जुलै 2021 रोजी परीक्षाच रद्द झाल्यामुळे तसेच विद्यार्थ्यांचे निकाल त्यांच्या दहावी अकरावी व कॉलेजने घेतलेल्या अंतर्गत बारावीच्या परीक्षांच्या आधारे जाहीर करण्यात येणार असल्यामुळे परीक्षेला न बसलेल्या व तसेच परीक्षेचा फॉर्म न भरलेल्या विद्यार्थ्यांचे निकाल मात्र केवळ त्यांनी परीक्षेला अर्ज केला नाही म्हणून जाहीर करण्यात येणार नव्हते, तथापि ज्यांनी परीक्षेचे अर्ज भरले त्यांचे निकाल मात्र वरील पद्धतीने जाहीर करण्यात येणार होते.

विद्यार्थिनी कडे आधार कार्ड नसल्यामुळे तिला अर्ज भरता आला नाही त्यामुळे तिने कॉलेजला विनंती केली की तिचे अंतर्गत परीक्षा कॉलेजने घ्यावी व तिचा निकाल जाहीर करण्यासाठी परीक्षा मंडळाकडे कॉलेजने अर्ज करावा कॉलेजने तिची विनंती मान्य करत अशा पद्धतीचा अर्ज दिनांक ९ जुलै २०२१ रोजी महाराष्ट्र राज्य परीक्षा महामंडळाकडे पाठवला तथापि सदर अर्जावर काहीही निर्णय न झाल्यामुळे सदर विद्यार्थिनीने हायकोर्टामध्ये याचिका दाखल केली.

दि. २३ जुलै २०२१ हा काॅलेज ए निकाल पाठविण्याचा शेवटचा दिवस, त्यामुळे सकाळी ११.०० वाजता मे. कोर्टाला सुनावणी घेण्याबाबत विनंती केली दुपारी ३.०० वाजता सुनावणी ठेवली. सुनावणीच्या नोटीसा समोरील पार्टीला बजावून दुपारी ३.०० वाजता हजर रहाण्यास सांगितले. सदर याचिकेची सुनावणी दुपारी ३.०० वाजता सुनावणी झाली सदर सुनावणीमध्ये हायकोर्टाने विद्यार्थिनीला न्याय दिला.

तिचा परीक्षा अर्ज ताबडतोब स्वीकारण्याचे आदेश दिले तसेच कालच्याच दिवशी तिची परीक्षा फीस भरून घेण्यासाठी महाराष्ट्र राज्य माध्यमिक व उच्च माध्यमिक परीक्षा मंडळाला हॉल तिकीट बनविण्याचे आदेश दिले. २ दिवसांमध्ये तिचा हॉल तिकीट नंबर काॅलेज ला कळविला जाईल व तिला दहावी अकरावी व तिच्या बारावीच्या कॉलेजने घेतलेल्या परीक्षेच्या आधारे तिचा निकाल जाहीर करण्यात येईल. हायकोर्ट मध्ये या मुलीला न्याय मिळाला नाहीतर तिचे एक वर्ष वाया गेले असते.

तथापि या कठीण काळामध्ये दहावी-बारावीच्या ज्या मुलांना त्यांच्या परीक्षेचे अर्ज (घरामध्ये आजारी व्यक्ती असल्यामुळे) भरता आला नाही, परीक्षा फीस भरता आली नाही, अशा विद्यार्थ्यांचा प्रश्न राज्य सरकार तसेच महाराष्ट्र राज्य माध्यमिक व उच्च माध्यमिक मंडळाने विचारात घेतलाच नाही.

कोर्टात गेल्यामुळे एका मुलीला न्याय मिळाला तथापि अशा कितीतरी विद्यार्थ्यांना न्यायापासून वंचित राहावे लागले असेल करोना प्रकोपामूळे आणीबाणीच्या प्रसंगातून विद्यार्थी जात आहे त्यातील एका विद्यार्थ्याला तरी हायकोर्टाच्या माध्यमातून न्याय मिळाला याचे निश्चितच समाधान आहे.

23/07/2021

ICL 2021 (7) AP 10 | Writ Petition - Police failed to register FIR - The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that the report lodged by them before the police is not received and registered as F.I.R. and the same is not investigated - The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same has been well settled as per the authoritative pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this High Court. Now it is well settled law that when police failed to register the F.I.R. based on the report lodged by any individual disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, his remedy is not by way of filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but he has to exhaust the other remedies which are available to him under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. When police failed to register F.I.R. based on the report lodged with them, which discloses commission of a cognizable offence, the remedy of the aggrieved person is not by way of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but only by way of exhausting the other remedies contemplated under Cr.P.C. i.e. under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. and held that the writ petition seeking such direction to the police to register the F.I.R. is not maintainable. In the aforesaid judgment, this Court has also clearly explained the distinction between the ratio laid down in Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1 and the cases of like nature and clearly held that the writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. CHEEKATI MANAVENDRANATH ROY, J. A. Subash Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 06.07.2021

23/07/2021

https://www.barandbench.com/amp/story/columns/sub-silentio-per-incuriam-the-art-of-distinguishing-a-judgment

Have you ever felt that a judgment cited by the opposite counsel has limited your arsenal of arguments, such that your entire case has seemingly fallen flat?

23/07/2021

Marriage Settlement Agreement – Divorce by Mutual Consent – Waving requirement of Waiting Period. AIR 2021 SC 2984

Marriage Laws – Special Marriage Act, 1954 – S. 27 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Ss. 13B & 28 – Divorce by Mutual Consent – Settlement Agreement – the dispute of the parties stands amicably resolved with the Settlement Agreement and there appears no reason to decline the relief as sought for by the parties in this agreement. Looking to the time that has elapsed since after the parties entered into the first agreement, whose essential terms are retained by the parties and rather they have also partly acted upon the same, it appears just and proper to grant a decree of divorce by mutual consent to the parties in terms of their agreement while waving any requirement of waiting period for the parties.
Citations : AIR 2021 SC 2984

21/07/2021

Supreme Court Strikes Down 97th Constitutional Amendment To The Extent It Relates To Cooperative Societies

The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a 2013 judgment of the Gujarat High Court which struck down the provisions of the Constitution(97th Amendment) 2011 to the extent it introduced Part IX B in the...