SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 9, 10, 11, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 22, 23(2)-- Proceedings in camera - Video Conferencing - Reconciliatory measures are to be taken at first instance and emphasis in on efforts for reconciliation failing which court should proceed for adjudication and command on Family Court is to hold it in camera if either party so desires - (Majority View..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 22, 19, 23(2), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 24, Order 18, Rule 3, 4-- Matrimonial case - Recording of evidence through video conferencing - Video Conferencing cannot be excluded from any stage of proceeding before Family Court - Whether it should be adopted in a particular case must be left to judicious view of Family Court - High Courts will be well advised to..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 11, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, Section 22-- Proceedings in camera - Video Conferencing - Provision mandates proceedings to be held in camera if one of parties so desires - Proceedings to be held in camera and any matter in relation to any such proceedings may not be printed to published except judgment of High Court of Supreme Court with..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 11-- Proceedings in camera - Video Conferencing - In case where wife does not give consent for Video Conferencing, it would be contrary to S.11 of Act - If one party make request proceedings may be conducted by Video Conferencing mode or system would be contrary to language employed u/S.11 of Act -..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Family Courts Act, 1984, Section 11-- Proceedings in camera - Video Conferencing - If one of parties desires that proceedings should be held in camera, Family Court has no option but to so direct - Supreme Court in exercise of its jurisdiction cannot take away such sanctified right that law recognises either for wife or husband -..........
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 11-- Res judicata - Dismissal of an application as not maintainable - There is no prohibition in filing another application which is maintainable...........
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 377, Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, Section 4, 11-- Appeal - Maintainability - Order granting benefit of probation - Cannot be challenged by way of filing appeal u/s 377 Cr.P.C., as said order can only be challenged by filing appeal u/s 11 of Act of 1958 - Appeal rightly dismissed...........
DELHI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 7, Rule 11, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, Section 7, 9, 11, 25, Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6(a)-- Rejection of plaint - Custody petition - Petition by wife - Both husband and wife acquired USA citizenship - Even, marriage of parties took place first in USA and first child of parties was born in USA - Simply because marital discord took place between parties later on, which made wife flee from..........
DELHI HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 10, 11-- Stay of subsequent suit - Res judicata - All invoices i.e octroi invoices and STIs raised by plaintiff in present suit are also in issue in earlier suit - Issues in earlier suit and in present suit are directly or substantially the same - If both suits are permitted to proceed, there will be two..........
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Year of decision: 2017
Details
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 319, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 11, 13(1)(d), 13(2), Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 420, 409, 120B-- Summoning of additional accused - Misappropriation of amount in State Corporation - Collection of money done in different branch offices spread all over State - However, instructions were being parted through a Managing Director and Chairman of Corporation - Proposed accused/respondents are PA to..........