Srinivas Nehta Adv Ccc: *TELANGANA HIGH COURT*
Agreement to sell - Oral - Two companies - Normally when two companies want to enter into an agreement for sale and purchase of land, they must enter into a written agreement, but not by way of an oral agreement. (2020(2) Civil Court Cases 609 (Telangana)
*SUPREME COURT OF INDIA*
Attempt to commit an offence begins when accused commences to do an act with necessary intention. (2019(3) Apex Court Judgments 790 (S.C.)
*SUPREME COURT OF INDIA*
Dishonour of cheque - Cross examination of prosecution witnesses is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of consideration. (2019(4) Criminal Court Cases 637 (S.C.)
*MADRAS HIGH COURT*
Dishonour of cheque - Partnership Firm - Notice not given to partnership firm and even partnership firm not made as an accused - Complaint not maintainable. (2020(1) Civil Court Cases 813 (Madras)
*PATNA HIGH COURT*
Divorce decree - Expunging of remarks - Remarks casting aspersion and stigma on personal character of wife - Remarks expunged from judgment. (2020(1) Civil Court Cases 423 (Patna)
*RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT*
Ex parte decree - Setting aside - Substituted service - Summons issued once but not received back - Summons not sent by registered post despite such a direction - Mere fact that plaintiff entered into another wedlock is not a reason for sustaining ex parte decree - Ex parte decree rightly set aside. (2020(2) Civil Court Cases 700 (Rajasthan)
*PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT*
Fraud - Proof - To prove plea of fraud, plaintiff has to lead affirmative evidence. (2019(2) Civil Court Cases 297 (P&H)
*PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT*
Dishonour of cheque - Loan of 23.94 lakhs - Failure to prove financial capacity - Accused rightly acquitted. (2020(3) Civil Court Cases 539 (P&H)
[16/10, 8:18 pm] Srinivas Nehta Adv Ccc: SUPREME COURT OF INDIA JUDGEMEMT Dt. 15-10-2020. ( related to Domestic violence)
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. “Shared household” in Section 2(s) need not be the joint family household or household or in which husband has a share. Judgment in S.R. Batra and Anr. Vs. Taruna Batra, (2007) 3 SCC 169 overruled
Supreme Court 15:10:2020.
Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ajuja
Civil Appeal 2483/2020
Decided on 15 October 2020.
Justice Ashok Bhushan.
Justice R. Subhash Reddy
Justice M.R. Shah
Judgment link:
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2020/689
Relevant paragraphs. 48. ....In the suit filed by the appellant for mandatory and permanent injunction, appellant pleaded that he is the sole owner of the house and prayed for removal of respondent, his daughter-in-law from the first floor of the house. The respondent had filed a written statement in the suit and claimed that the suit property is a shared household where the respondent had right to reside. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the premises is not a shared household since the husband of the respondent neither has any share in the suit premises nor suit premises is a joint family property.
55....From the above definition, following is clear:- (i) it is not requirement of law that aggrieved person may either own the premises jointly or singly or by tenanting it jointly or singly; (ii) the household may belong to a joint family of which the respondent is a member irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household; and (iii) the shared household may either be owned or tenanted by the respondent singly or jointly.
62..... The use of the expression “at any stage has lived” is for the above purpose and not with the object that wherever the aggrieved person has lived with the relatives of husband, all such houses shall become shared household, which is not the legislative intent. The shared household is contemplated to be the household, which is a dwelling place of aggrieved person in present time.
63. The words “lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship” have to be given its normal and purposeful meaning. The living of woman in a household has to refer to a living which has some permanency. Mere fleeting or casual living at different places shall not make a shared household. The intention of the parties and the nature of living including the nature of household have to be looked into to find out as to whether the parties intended to treat the premises as shared household or not.
64.... the right to residence under Section 19 is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household especially when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. The senior citizens in the evening of their life are also entitled to live peacefully not haunted by marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law. While granting relief both in application under Section 12 of Act, 2005 or in any civil proceedings, the Court has to balance the rights of both the parties.
84. In view of the foregoing discussions, we answer issue Nos. 1 and 2 in following manner:-
(i) The definition of shared household given in Section 2(s) cannot be read to mean that shared household can only be that household which is household of the joint family of which husband is a member or in which husband of the aggrieved person has a share.
(ii) The judgment of this Court in S.R. Batra Vs. Taruna Batra (supra) has not correctly interpreted Section 2(s) of Act, 2005 and the judgment does not lay down a correct law
కామెంట్లు లేవు:
కామెంట్ను పోస్ట్ చేయండి