Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages


Home / News
News, Top Stories

MP High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To Man Over “Trivial” Charges Of Cruelty

The Madhya Pradesh High Court granted anticipatory bail to a man accused of cruelty and harassment for dowry by his wife, stating that if the applicant goes to jail, the marriage would almost surely come to an end “as thereafter there would be hardly any chances of compromise”.

By Dimple Kaushalya

The applicant filed an application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail as he was apprehending his arrest in connection with an FIR under Sections 294, 498-A and 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

In this case, the applicant is the husband, whose wife stays separately and has filed the FIR on 19.6.2020.

The allegations in the said FIR were that the applicant was abusive towards the complainant, demanded a gold chain of five tolas, and asked for the land owned by her father. She also alleged that the victim locked her up for long durations, denied her medical help, and forced her to perform unnatural sex. 

The counsel for the applicant submitted that the FIR is according to a complaint that he made regarding his in-laws taking his wife away and not allowing her to cohabit with him. The said complaint was lodged on 8.6.2020 i.e. on a date preceding the registration of the FIR. It was further argued that he has preferred an application under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights only after the registration of the FIR as he could not do it before, on account of the lockdown due to COVID-19.

The counsel for the complainant objected to the grant of anticipatory bail in view of the allegations leveled against the applicant in the FIR which, according to him, are grave and serious.

Perusing the above facts, the Single Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan found that the allegations are “very trivial” and “can happen in any matrimonial home”. 

Further, the Bench stated that “marriages would always experience some friction or the other”, and noted that there no signs of injury on the body of the complainant as per the MLC. Hence, the Court expressed the opinion that if the applicant goes to jail, the marriage would almost surely come to an end as thereafter there would be hardly any chances of compromise.

“However, as the allegations reveal that they are trivial in nature, a window of compromise or settlement is always kept open”, stated by the bench while granting pre-arrest bail.

Advocate Mr. Surendra Patel appeared for the applicant, Mr. Utkarsh Agrawal, as the Panel Lawyer for the respondent-State, Mr. Paritosh Trivedi, for the objector.

News, Top Stories

Tablighi Jamaat related certain Foreign Nationals discharged by the Delhi Trial Court. [READ ORDER]

Foreign nationals related to the Tablighi Jamaat event have been discharged of all the offences leveled against them under the various provisions of the Foreigners Act, the Disaster Management Act, and the Indian Penal Code by a Trial Court in Delhi.

By: Divyansh Saini

The charge sheet alleged that the accused persons arrived in India on a tourist visa, instead of a missionary visa, and violated the terms of their visa by indulging in missionary work and voluntarily propagating the ideology of the Tablighi Jamaat.

The charge sheet further alleged that “Directions were given  by Delhi Police to Mufti Shahzad of the Markaz and he was asked to take immediate action for preventing the spread of disease and also to send the foreign devotees back to their countries and other Indians to their respective states, however, no such direction was followed.”

Senior Advocate Rebecca John, who appeared for the accused, argued that that the charge sheet was silent as to the role of any of the accused persons so charge-sheeted and also did not provide any specific act done by them to invoke provisions of any of the sections alleged against them.

Further, the counsel for accused argued that as per the visa guidelines available on the MHA website, the accused persons were not barred from visiting and attending any religious place including the Tablighi Jamaat and

there is no evidence to show as per the charge sheet and documents attached that any of the accused persons had preached or professed or was involved in any Tablighi work.

Perusing these submissions into consideration, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gurmohina Kaur discharged these foreign nationals of all offences invoked against them and observed that there is no prima facie evidence against the accused persons in the present matter.

The court stated that “In the absence of any record or any credible material placed before this court in the present charge sheet or any of the documents attached along with it, so as to proceed further against the accused as already discussed above accused namely NurbekDosmukanbetUulu is hereby discharged from all offences in the present case.” 

News, Top Stories

SC Grants Bail to Octogenarian after DNA Reports showed that he is not the Father of Rape Victim’s Child

The Supreme Court granted bail to an octogenarian rape accused after noticing the DNA report which showed that he is not the father of the child born to the rape victim.

By: Dimple Kaushalya

The man was booked under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, for allegedly raping a minor. The girl delivered a baby on 5th July. The accused was denied bail by the Calcutta High Court and had hence filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court. In his SLP, he submitted that he is willing to get a DNA test done to verify that he is not responsible for the pregnancy of the daughter of the complainant girl. He submitted that his writ petition before the High Court in that regard is still pending. According to him, a false case has been lodged against him by the complainant who is his tenant and there was a dispute between them regarding non-payment of rent.

Last month, when the matter came up before the Supreme, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for the man, submitted that the accused is aged 84, and he is incapable of sexual activities.

He reiterated that the accused is willing to undergo a DNA Test and prayed for his release from jail. 

The bench comprising of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Ajay Rastogi, taking note of the DNA report, observed:

Learned senior counsel for the appellant has a copy of the same and both the learned counsel are ad-idem on the fact that the DNA report does not show that the appellant is a father of the child born.

“In view of the aforesaid, we have no hesitation in saying that the appellant should be enlarged on bail on the terms and conditions to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. Learned senior counsel for the appellant further submits that it is out of a landlord-tenant dispute that a false case has been filed and that he should be given appropriate compensation”

News, Top Stories

Supreme Court rules that flat buyers are entitled to just and reasonable compensation for gross delay by builders in handing over possession.

In an apex court Case titled ‘Wg. Cdr.Arifur Rahman Khan and Aleya Sultana and Ors. vs DLF Southern Homes Pvt Ltd.’ (now known as BEGUR OMR Homes Pvt. Ltd.), the judgment has been ruled in favor of the flat buyers who would be entitled to compensation in case of gross delay in handing over possession by the builders; thereby securing the buyers’ rights. 

By: Anjali Singhvi 

A Supreme Court case involving Counsel of Adv Prashant Bhushan, Sr. Adv Bishwajit Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv R Balasubramanian and Sr.Adv Pinaki Misra has ruled that

the failure of the developer to comply with the contractual obligation to provide the flat to a flat purchaser within a contractually stipulated period amounts to a deficiency.

The bench comprising of Justices DY Chandrachud and KM Joseph observed that

“in cases where there is a gross delay in the handing over of possession beyond the contractually stipulated period, the jurisdiction of the consumer forum to award just and reasonable compensation is not constrained by the terms of a rate in builders agreement.”

The bench issued the following directives:

  1. Save and except for eleven appellants who entered into specific settlements with the developer and three appellants who have sold their right, title and interest under the ABA, the first and second respondents shall, as a measure of compensation, pay an amount calculated at the rate of 6 percent simple interest per annum to each of the appellants. The amount shall be computed on the total amounts paid towards the purchase of the respective flats with effect from the date of expiry of thirty-six months from the execution of the respective ABAs until the date of the offer of possession after the receipt of the occupation certificate; 
  2. The above amount shall be in addition to the amounts which have been paid over or credited by the developer at the rate of Rs 5 per square foot per month at the time of the drawing of final accounts; and 
  3. The amounts due and payable in terms of directions (i) and (ii) above shall be paid over within one month from the date of this judgment, failing which they shall carry interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum until payment is made.
News, Top Stories

“The term ‘Share Capital’ is a ‘genus’ of which ‘Equity and Preference share capital’ are ‘species’”: NCLAT

“‘Reduction of Capital’ is a ‘Domestic Affair’ of a particular Company in which, ordinarily, a Tribunal will not interfere because of the reason that it is a ‘majority decision’ which prevails.”

By: Ayushi Sahu 

Economy Hotels India Services Private Limited, a wholly-owned subsidiary of AAPC Singapore Pvt. Ltd., a company incorporated under the laws of Singapore, filed the company appeal aggrieved by the order passed by the ‘National Company Law Tribunal,’ New Delhi, whereby the NCLT rejected the petition filed under Section 66(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2013 and granted liberty to file a fresh application after complying with all the requirements of Section 66 of the Companies Act.  

The ‘Articles of Association’ of the Economy Hotels in Article 9 specifies that the Company may, from time to time by a special resolution, reduce its share capital in any manner permitted by law. 

Characterizing the ‘special resolution’ as ‘unanimous ordinary resolution,’ the NCLT vide order dated 27.05.2020 observed, “Article 9 of the Articles of Association of the Company (page 81) of Paper book) allows it to reduce the share capital by passing a special resolution. Board resolution dated 29.7.19 recommended reduction in the capital as per Article 9 of Articles of Association and subject to members’ consent by a special resolution (page 111). We have perused the minutes of the Annual General Meeting of the Company held on 19.08.2019 (page 123 to 126 of the paper book). Page 123 of the Paper book records that “With the consent of the Members present, Mr. Balvinder Sahrawat was elected to chair the meeting.” On Page 124 of the paper book, it is recorded that the meeting has passed the resolution for reduction of capital “as an ordinary resolution.” The minutes of the meeting have been signed by the Chairman of the meeting on pg 126 of the paper book. Thus, we observe that the Company has not met the specific requirement of Section 66 of the Companies Act by passing ‘Special Resolution’ to reduce share capital. The Company has also not complied with the requirements of its Articles of Association. We are left with no choice but to reject the present application in view of the fact that there is no special resolution for reduction of share capital as prescribed under Section 66 of the Companies Act 2013 and as required in Article 9 of Articles of Association of the Company. Section 66 of Companies Act also requires this Tribunal to approve the minutes of the resolution passed by the Company which has been passed as ordinary resolution as against the requirement of special resolution [mentioned in Para 2(ii) above also as part of prayer]; the Tribunal is not in a position to approve such minutes in this case.”

Mr. Rajat Rai, Authorized representative of the Economy Hotels, authorized as per Board Resolution dated 03.07.2020 filed the appeal contending that 

1. The Company has placed enough documents on record to prove ‘special resolution’ as required under Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013, as well as in terms of the requirement under Article 9 of the ‘Articles of Association.’ 

2. A ‘typographical error’ in the extract of ‘Minutes,’ a resolution passed unanimously by the shareholders will not cease to be a ‘special resolution.’

3. NCLT has failed to appreciate that the resolution passed on 19.08.2019 was a ‘Special Resolution’ passed unanimously by the ‘shareholders’ of the Appellant and also fulfills the statutory requirements of section 114 of the Companies Act 

The NCLAT held,

On a careful consideration of respective contentions and this Tribunal, after subjectively satisfying itself that the Appellant/Company has tacitly admitted its creeping in of typographical error in the extract of the minutes and also taking into consideration of the 1st Respondent’s stand that the Appellant/Company had filed the special resolution with it, which satisfies the requirement of Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013, allows the Appeal by setting aside the impugned order passed by the ‘National Company Law Tribunal, Bench V in the Company Petition 149/66/ND/2019, thereby confirming the reduction of the share capital of the Appellant Company as resolved by the ‘Members’ in their ‘Annual General Meeting’ that took place on 19.08.2019 and further this Tribunal approves the form of Minutes required to be filed with Registrar of Companies, Delhi u/s 66(5) of the Companies Act, 2013, by the Appellant/Company. No costs. I.A. No. 1575 and I.A.No. 1576/2020 are closed.

The NCLAT propounded, 

Section 66 of the Companies Act, 2013 mentions the term ‘reduction Of Share Capital’. For a valid resolution, it must satisfy the relevant provisions contained under the Companies Act. A ‘special resolution’ is required to determine those matters for which the Act requires a ‘special resolution,’ and except these matters in all other situations, an ‘Ordinary Resolution’ is to be passed. It is pertinently pointed out that Section 114(2) of the Companies Act, 2013 enjoins that ‘Special Resolution’ means a resolution where the decision is reached by a special majority of more than 75% of members of a Company voting in person or proxy. In reality, Section 114(2) of the Act applies to all Companies.” 

1 2 79 80 81 82 83 99 100
About Exponent

Exponent is a modern business theme, that lets you build stunning high performance websites using a fully visual interface. Start with any of the demos below or build one on your own.

Get Started


Privacy Settings
We use cookies to enhance your experience while using our website. If you are using our Services via a browser you can restrict, block or remove cookies through your web browser settings. We also use content and scripts from third parties that may use tracking technologies. You can selectively provide your consent below to allow such third party embeds. For complete information about the cookies we use, data we collect and how we process them, please check our Privacy Policy
Consent to display content from Youtube
Consent to display content from Vimeo
Google Maps
Consent to display content from Google
Consent to display content from Spotify
Sound Cloud
Consent to display content from Sound
Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in posts
Search in pages