Sharma & Sharma Brothers Advocates and Consultants

25/02/2021

While rejecting Nirav Modi's challenge to the extradition request of Government of India in the Rs 14,000 crore PNB fraud case, a court in the United Kingdom discarded the opinon given by former...

31/08/2020

Supreme Court has dismissed the Review Petition filed by fugitive liquor baron Vijay Mallya against its May 2017 order holding him guilty of contempt of court for transferring money to his

18/04/2018

The Delhi High Court today, directed various media houses to deposit Rs. 10 lakh each as a penalty for disclosing the name and other details of the Kathua gangrape victim.

11/01/2018

With the Supreme Court Collegium making recommendations for High Court transfers, five High Courts will get new Chief Justices.

The Collegium has recommended the transfer of Calcutta High Court Acting Chief Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya to the Delhi High Court as Chief Justice. Till now, Justice Gita Mittal was the Acting Chief Justice of the Delhi High Court.

T B Radhakrishnan, the Chief Justice of the Chhattisgarh High Court, has been transferred to the Andhra Pradesh High Court while Justice Abhilasha Kumari of Gujarat High Court has been recommended for transfer to Manipur as Chief Justice.

Justice Surya Kant of Punjab and Haryana High court will be the new Chief Justice of Himachal Pradesh.

Further, the Collegium has recommended that Acting Chief Justice of Kerala High Court, Justice Antony Dominic be made the Chief Justice of Kerala High Court.

15/12/2017

The Delhi High Court yesterday upheld the trial court conviction of six policemen belonging to the Special Staff of the Delhi Police for the custodial death of one, Dalip Chakraborty in 1995.

Chakraborty had died on August 8, 1995 as a result of injuries inflicted on him by the appellants (police officers), while he was in their custody on 30th and 31st July, 1995.

The Division Bench of Justices S Muralidhar and IS Mehta noted that,

“These are all uniformed policemen who are expected to maintain the law and order and are not to take law and order in their own hands. They are expected to act responsibly with a view to protecting the life and liberty of the citizens.”

The Court observed that in the two decades since the offence was committed, the instances of custodial violence and custodial deaths in particular have not declined. It also referred to the recommendations made by the Law Commission of India from time to time for dealing with the issue.

“In its 113th Report regarding “injuries in police custody”, the Law Commission of India (LCI) suggested incorporation of Section 114-B in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

In its 152nd Report in 1994 on ‘Custodial Crimes’, the LCI recommended an amendment to the Indian Penal Code 1860 (IPC), by inserting a new provision for punishing the violation of Section 160 Cr PC. The LCI further recommended inserting sub-section (lA) in Section 41 of the Cr PC for recording the reasons for arrest and Section 50A to mandate relatives being informed of the arrest.

In its 177th Report in 2001 on the ‘Law relating to arrest’, the LCI recommended inserting Section 55 A in the Cr PC that would mandate the person “having the custody of an accused to take reasonable care of the health and safety of the accused.”

The Bench observed that none of the legislative changes recommended by the LCI have been made yet. In this context, it was remarked,

“The problem still stares at us in the face. It is in this backdrop that the Court proceeds to examine these appeals.”

Following examination of the evidence on record, the Court converted the conviction of the police officers under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC to Section 304 Part II, read with Section 34 of the IPC. The appellants were sentenced to eight years rigorous imprisonment each. The Court declined to interfere with the sentences served on the appellants by the trial court for other offences.

08/12/2017

"Raising your voice shows your incompetence", CJI Dipak Misra objects to Senior lawyers' conduct

The tussle between the Bar and the Bench at Supreme Court came to fore yet again today as Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra took strong objection to the conduct of certain Senior Counsel raising their voices and browbeating judges.

Misra J made some strong remarks in an oblique reference to the recent episodes in Ram Mandir – Babri Masjid case and other matters.

“When lawyers argue in a manner not in tune with Constitutional language, we will tolerate it, but for how long? If the Bar does not regulate itself, we will be compelled to regulate”, remarked CJI Misra.

Taking objection to the trend of Senior Counsel raising their voices, Misra J further noted,

“Unfortunately, a small group of Senior Counsel think they can raise their voices. But they must understand that raising voices will not be tolerated.

Raising voices only shows their inadequacy, incompetence and that they are not fit to be Seniors”, he said.

These remarks were made when Misra J was sitting in a Constitution Bench for hearing the case on Deemed Conversion of Parsi women.

Senior Advocate Gopal Subramanium had raised the issue when the Bench, which also comprised Justices AK Sikri, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Ashok Bhushan, proceeded to make the scathing remarks.

18/11/2017

Brahmin Woman Can’t Get SC/ST Status After Marrying SC/ST Man: Himachal Pradesh HC ...

Read more at:

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has reiterated that a person who does not belongs to a Scheduled Tribe or a Scheduled Caste category by birth, simply by virtue of marrying a person belonging thereto cannot gain the status of that particular caste or tribe. The bench of the Acting Chief Justice Sanja...

14/11/2017

An accused cannot be kept behind bars for an unlimited period before being adjudicated guilty

High Court of Himachal Pradesh: While deciding a bail application filed under Section 439 CrPC, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. enlarged the petitioner on bail observing that it was a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner to bail was required to be exercised in his favour.

The petitioner was charged under Section 376 IPC. He was accused of sexually assaulting the prosecutrix. It was alleged that the petitioner indulged in sexual in*******se with the prosecutrix on the pretext of marrying her. However, now the petitioner was denying to marry her and as such the prosecutrix filed the complaint which resulted in the criminal case being registered against the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that he was innocent and he was neither in a position to tamper with the prosecution evidence nor in a position to flee from justice. He further argued that the prosecutrix was four years elder to the petitioner. The petitioner was just 19 years of age when the offence was alleged to have committed. As per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the only case was that the petitioner was seen by the prosecutrix chatting with another girl on Facebook and this was the reason that she lodged the FIR against the petitioner.

The High Court perused the whole record and the rival contentions of the parties and was of the view that the petitioner was in custody for over two years and he could not be kept behind the bars for an unlimited period before being adjudicated guilty. Therefore, keeping in view the material which came on record and without discussing the same at the instant stage, the Court found that it was a fit case where the judicial discretion to admit the petitioner on bail was required to be exercised in his favor. Accordingly, the application was allowed and the petitioner was granted bail, subject to the conditions imposed. [Ankush alias Shivam v. State of Himachal Pradesh,2017 SCC OnLine HP 1596, order dated 7.11.2017]

15/09/2017

Breaking : Question Paper Leak- Punjab & Haryana HC Scraps Haryana Judicial Service Preliminary Examination 2017.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has scrapped the Haryana Judicial Service [HCS(JB)] Preliminary Examination-2017 held on 16.7.2017.

The Registrar General of Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday announced that the examination is scrapped by the High Court.

The Recruitment/Promotion/ Court Creation Committee (Subordinate Judicial Services) of the High Court, prima facie, finding that some of the candidates had access to the question paper, had recommended the scrapping of HCS (JB) preliminary examination held on 16.7.2017.

The Committee had submitted the recommendations before the full Bench of High Court hearing petitions challenging the examination.

Noticing that there were total 760 calls and SMSs exchanged between Dr. Balwinder Sharma, Registrar (Recruitment) and Ms. Sunita during last one year, disciplinary action against Dr. Balwinder Sharma, Registrar (Recruitment) has been recommended. He has been recommended to be transferred forthwith from the post pending further action. Further recommendation has been made for registration of FIR for further probe regarding leakage of question paper.

The recommendations made by the Committee read as follows;

(a) In view of the prima facie finding that at least two candidates namely Ms. Sunita and Sushila had the question papers and therefore the possibility that other candidates may have also had access to the question paper cannot be ruled out; in such circumstances, purity of the examination having been lost, the Committee recommends that the HCS (JB) Preliminary Examination 2017 held on 16.7.2017 be scrapped.

(b) Keeping in view the finding that Dr. Balwinder Sharma, Registrar (Recruitment) unequivocally stated that he had no prior acquaintance with Ms. Sunita (the topper in general category), while the call details given by the service provider reveal that there were a total of 760 calls and SMSs exchanged between Dr. Balwinder Sharma and Ms. Sunita during the last one year, indicate that the matter requires a deeper probe. Therefore, the Committee recommends that regular enquiry be initiated against Dr. Balwinder Sharma, Registrar (Recruitment) on the basis of preliminary enquiry.

(c) Dr. Balwinder Sharma, Registrar (Recruitment) be transferred forthwith from this post pending further action.

(d) An FIR be lodged against Ms. Sunita, Ms. Sushila and Dr. Balwinder Sharma, Registrar (Recruitment) to further probe the act of leakage of question paper of HCS (JB) Preliminary Examination 2017.

The Full bench has posted the case on September 15 for further hearing.

13/09/2017

Supreme Court has held that minimum period of six months under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for passing decree of divorce is not mandatory

30/08/2017

The law of limitation does not permit any extra time for government functionaries that must complete the administrative procedure of seeking approvals for legal matters within the limitation period, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has held. The NCDRC said so while taking a strict...

30/08/2017

In an important judgment in the realm of Motor Vehicle Laws, the Supreme Court, in Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, has held that there is no requirement to obtain separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle,...