MSK Publications -MSK Law Reports 2015 – Ready Reckoner

five accused were acquitted of the charge under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. - Moreover the viscera contain mercury metallic poison along with Ethyl alcohol.  According to P.W.10, mercury is a corrosive substance and it caused damage to the lips, mouth, throat and oesonghages.  But, there is no corrosive appearance on the lips, mouth and throat of the deceased to fix up the liability against the accused that they poured manocrotopas mercury   metallic poison in the mouth of deceased and killed her. On a careful appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record and the reasons assigned by   the trial Court, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt and that the trial Court has rightly acquitted all the accused of the charge framed against them.

Order XXVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure  for sending expert opinion at fag end of the arguments- delay - dismissed  =  suit for specific  performance of an agreement of sale - Ex.A.1, in the year 2010. -   filed a written statement wherein they have denied the execution of the agreement of sale by disputing the signatures.-  I.A. under Order XXVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to send Ex.A.1 and the written statement in original to an handwriting expert for comparison of the admitted signatures with the disputed signatures on Ex.A.1.  - This application was dismissed by the lower Court on the sole ground of inordinate delay in filing the application and especially at the stage of arguments.  -  their lordships held that    I am unable to agree with the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that cause of action for his client to file the application for sending the suit d...

Or.39, rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. - granting interim injunction against sub registrar who is not a party to the suit - No interim injunction exparte can be granted against third party to the suit- Even in Shyamali Das v. Illa Chowdary and Others (6th supra), the Apex Court made it clear that the injunction cannot be granted against the person who is not a party to the proceedings, but the Tribunal observed that in the utmost necessity the court can grant an interim order even before impleading the person against whom the interim order is sought for.   It is not the law declared by the Apex court, but it is an observation made by the Tribunal.  Even otherwise, it is for the court to record reasons that there is an utmost necessity to grant an interim injunction, before impleading a person against whom the interim order was sought for. But here the order is bereft of any reasons to conclude that there is utmost necessity.  Even the order is silent that in view of utm...

2017 A.P. Digest - June part-1 suit for specific performance - sale agreement is a fabricated one -  The Court below took the aid of a magnifying glass to look at the dates, to  understand that the sale agreement was brought into existence and  is not a genuine one.  But even to the naked eye the said dubiety  would be evident.  The sale agreement, as rightly observed by the  Court below, is dated 23.05.1987 whereas the stamp paper was  purchased on 27.05.1987.  The said inconsistency is insuperable. P.W.1 asserts that the stamp paper was purchased on the date of  agreement itself, which is 23rd, whereas the stamp paper bears a glaring date of 27th .- the evidence of the  attestors and any one testifying to have been a witness to such  agreement, like P.W.6 also would only be nothing but untrustworthy.- no other understanding except  that the sale agreement was brought into existence by all concerned,  unmind...

DEFAMATION -sufficient if one sanction is accorded to prosecute all the concerned persons involved in that occurrence,=  By careful reading of  Section 199(4)  of the Cr.P.C., it does not indicate that in order to initiate criminal proceedings against the accused, the public servant needs to obtain sanction from the State Government in respect of each one of the persons against whom the same transaction of offence is alleged and the names of the accused are required to be mentioned specifically in the sanction order accorded by the State Government. It is sufficient if one sanction is accorded to prosecute all the concerned persons involved in that occurrence, thus, the contention on behalf of the appellants in this regard is also liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected.

It is open to anyone to express fair, reasonable and legitimate criticism of any act or conduct of a Judge in his judicial capacity or even to make a proper and fair comment on any decision given by him. But, if an article attributes improper motives to the Judge, it not only transgresses the limits of fair and bona fide criticism but has a clear tendency to affect the dignity and prestige of the court and would amount to contempt of court.

whether Civil Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent herein or the subject matter of the suit lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal constituted under the Rajasthan Wakf Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’), having regard to the provisions of Section 85 of the Act ? = Apex court held that since the suit was filed much before the Act came into force, going by the dicta laid down in Sardar Khan case, it is the civil court where the suit was filed will continue to have the jurisdiction over the issue and civil court would be competent to decide the same.