Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Supreme Court Case 2019 SC 1148 involves various legal proceedings, including civil, criminal, and insolvency matters, with multiple references to judgments, orders, and petitions. ["[PREMSHANKAR KASUTRDAS SHARMA THROU FRIEND, MANISH SHIVSHANKAR PANCHAL vs STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"]], ["[MONIKA vs HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION - Punjab and Haryana"]], ["[MONIKA vs HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION - Punjab and Haryana"]], ["[Amit Katyal VS Manjula Khullar - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal"]], ["[Ex Hav Birbal Singh (No 04065789 X) vs UOI,COAS,CRO DSC Records,PCDA (P) Allahabad - Allahabad"]], ["[MONIKA vs HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION - Punjab and Haryana"]], ["[MONIKA vs HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION - Punjab and Haryana"]], ["[MONIKA vs HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION - Punjab and Haryana"]], ["[MONIKA vs HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION - Punjab and Haryana"]], ["[M.Christ Miller vs The Inspector of Police - Madras"]], ["[MONIKA vs HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION - Punjab and Haryana"]], ["[ALTF SPACES PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MS URVI vs HOMESTORE18 THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MR BHARAT SHARMA - Delhi"]], ["[P.KISHORE vs STATE BY ITS - Madras"]].
The case highlights the Supreme Court's involvement in various legal issues such as insolvency proceedings (Manjula Khullar vs. M/s. Krrish Shalimar Projects Pvt. Ltd.), employment and service disputes (increments, service conditions), family law matters, and criminal proceedings. For example, in insolvency, the Court admitted the application C.P. No. (IB)-1148(PB)/2018 and directed parties to abide by a settlement reached on 27th January 2019 ["[Amit Katyal VS Manjula Khullar - National Company Law Appellate Tribunal"].
Several judgments emphasize the Court's approach to procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles. For instance, in criminal cases, the Court reiterated the importance of proper investigation and notice before final reports are filed, referencing Bhagwat Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu ["SRI A MANJUNATH vs SMT. GEETHA KALLUR - Karnataka"] and the Supreme Court's directives for speedy trials ["[MONIKA vs HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION - Punjab and Haryana"].
The Court also dealt with the withdrawal and disposal of cases, including family petitions, with orders noting that some cases, such as M.C. No. 1148/2019, were withdrawn or disposed of, and the petitioner’s subsequent attempts to revive or challenge these orders were dismissed ["[MONIKA vs HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION - Punjab and Haryana"], ["SRI A MANJUNATH vs SMT. GEETHA KALLUR - Karnataka"].
Main insights include the Court's consistent enforcement of procedural justice, the importance of following Supreme Court directives, and the resolution of cases through settlement or withdrawal, with some cases being dismissed or disposed of after due consideration ["[PREMSHANKAR KASUTRDAS SHARMA THROU FRIEND, MANISH SHIVSHANKAR PANCHAL vs STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"], ["[MONIKA vs HARYANA STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION - Punjab and Haryana"].
In conclusion, the 2019 Supreme Court case 1148/2019 reflects the Court's comprehensive role across multiple legal domains, emphasizing adherence to procedural fairness, the finality of orders, and the importance of following Supreme Court rulings in ongoing litigation ["[PREMSHANKAR KASUTRDAS SHARMA THROU FRIEND, MANISH SHIVSHANKAR PANCHAL vs STATE OF GUJARAT - Gujarat"].
In an increasingly globalized world, criminal cases spanning international borders are becoming more common. Imagine a matrimonial dispute originating abroad but leading to charges in India under serious laws like Sections 498A and 506 IPC. This scenario formed the backdrop of the Supreme Court's pivotal 2019 judgment referenced as SC 1148, particularly highlighted in document Thota Venkateswarlu VS State of A. P. Tr. Princl. Sec. - 2011 6 Supreme 97. The case, 2019 Supreme SC 1148, addressed a critical procedural question: When can Indian courts take cognizance and proceed to trial for offences committed outside India? This ruling clarifies the proviso to Section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973, balancing jurisdictional safeguards with prosecutorial efficiency.
This blog post delves into the judgment's key holdings, its implications, and related principles from supporting precedents. Note: This is general information based on public legal documents and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your situation.
The petitioner married Respondent No. 2 in Andhra Pradesh before the couple relocated to Botswana. Respondent No. 2 later filed a complaint from Botswana alleging ill-treatment and dowry demands, triggering a case under Sections 498A, 506 IPC, and the Dowry Prohibition Act. The Magistrate in India took cognizance of the offence Thota Venkateswarlu VS State of A. P. Tr. Princl. Sec. - 2011 6 Supreme 97.
Challenging this, the petitioner invoked the proviso to Section 188 CrPC, arguing that prior sanction from the Central Government is mandatory for offences committed outside India before any trial proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition, leading to a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court provided a nuanced interpretation: Upto the stage of taking cognizance, no prior sanction is requiredThota Venkateswarlu VS State of A. P. Tr. Princl. Sec. - 2011 6 Supreme 97. However, the trial cannot proceed beyond cognizance without such sanction for offences outside India Thota Venkateswarlu VS State of A. P. Tr. Princl. Sec. - 2011 6 Supreme 97.
This distinction is crucial:- Cognizance Stage: Magistrates can initiate proceedings based on complaints or police reports without Central Government approval. This allows preliminary scrutiny without procedural hurdles.- Trial Stage: For offences committed abroad, prior sanction becomes mandatory to proceed, safeguarding against frivolous or politically motivated prosecutions.
The Court emphasized: The Magistrate may proceed with proceedings for offences committed in India but must obtain sanction before trying offences committed outside IndiaThota Venkateswarlu VS State of A. P. Tr. Princl. Sec. - 2011 6 Supreme 97. This aligns with the proviso's intent to address international comity and jurisdictional sensitivities.
In essence, the ruling prevents abuse while ensuring initial access to justice. As noted in related analyses, this procedural safeguard typically prevents delays at the outset but mandates compliance before substantive hearings.
Complementing the procedural clarity, associated documents underscore judicial transparency. In document M/s Goyal Enterprises VS State of Jharkhand - 2008 2 Supreme 730, the Supreme Court held that refusing leave without reasons is not sustainable, stressing reasoned orders under CrPC Section 378(4). The Court remarked: Refusing to grant leave to appeal without giving a reason therefor is not sustainableM/s Goyal Enterprises VS State of Jharkhand - 2008 2 Supreme 730.
Similarly, in Director, Horticulture Punjab VS Jagjivan Parshad - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 568, dismissing a writ petition without reasons was deemed non-tenable under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court set aside the order and remitted it for a reasoned decision, reinforcing accountability.
Document State Of Travancore Cochin: Union Of India VS Bombay Company LTD. , Alleppey - 1952 0 Supreme(SC) 55 further highlights judicial discipline requires courts to abide by Supreme Court rulings, binding lower courts to precedents like the one in SC 1148.
These principles ensure transparency, allowing parties to understand and challenge decisions effectively.
While the core issue revolves around CrPC Section 188, other references to 2019 cases numbered around 1148 provide contextual depth. For instance, Contempt Petition (C) No. 1148/2019 SUHAIL AHMAD S/D/W/Thru:- JAMEEL AHMAD : 69/56 CHHITVAPUR, BHEDI MANDI, LAL KUAN KUNWA , DISTRICT: LUCKNOW ,LUCKNOW , UTTAR PRADESH vs T P SINGH, GENERAL MANAGER : NORTHERN RAILWAY, BARODA HOUSE, , DISTRICT: NEW DELHI ,NEW DELHI , DELHI involved Supreme Court oversight in a writ petition, illustrating the Court's role in enforcing compliance. Similarly, Review Petition (Civil) No. 1148 of 2019 AMINA BI KASKAR (DECEASED) vs UNION OF INDIA addressed inherent jurisdiction in civil appeals, echoing the need for reasoned scrutiny.
In a procedural nod, M. Christ Miller VS State Represented by the Inspector of Police, Nagercoil - 2024 Supreme(Mad) 873 emphasizes speedy trials and complainant notifications, drawing from precedents like Bhagwat Singh vs. Commissioner of Police. Though not directly on Section 188, it aligns with the ruling's efficiency focus: investigation agencies and courts must inform complainants of changes, preventing undue delays.
Criminal cases like those in Kuleshwar Yadav VS State of Bihar - 2022 Supreme(Pat) 667 (Pohlu vs. State of Haryana, MANU/SC/1148/2004) highlight proof burdens in IPC Section 302 matters, reminding that procedural safeguards like sanctions complement evidentiary rigors.
These sources collectively paint a picture of a judiciary prioritizing procedure, reason, and fairness.
In arbitration contexts like Aapico Investment Pte. Limited VS Manickam Mahalingam - 2021 Supreme(Mad) 1046, similar procedural injunctions under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act highlight analogous safeguards for disputed assets.
The 2019 Supreme Court ruling in SC 1148, as detailed in Thota Venkateswarlu VS State of A. P. Tr. Princl. Sec. - 2011 6 Supreme 97, offers a pragmatic framework: cognizance without sanction streamlines access, while trial sanctions protect integrity. Coupled with mandates for reasoned orders M/s Goyal Enterprises VS State of Jharkhand - 2008 2 Supreme 730Director, Horticulture Punjab VS Jagjivan Parshad - 2008 0 Supreme(SC) 568, it exemplifies judicial wisdom.
Key Takeaways:- No prior sanction for cognizance of foreign offences Thota Venkateswarlu VS State of A. P. Tr. Princl. Sec. - 2011 6 Supreme 97.- Sanction mandatory before trial Thota Venkateswarlu VS State of A. P. Tr. Princl. Sec. - 2011 6 Supreme 97.- Reasoned orders essential for sustainability M/s Goyal Enterprises VS State of Jharkhand - 2008 2 Supreme 730.- Courts bound by Supreme Court law State Of Travancore Cochin: Union Of India VS Bombay Company LTD. , Alleppey - 1952 0 Supreme(SC) 55.
This judgment remains relevant for NRI disputes, dowry cases, and beyond. Stay informed on evolving precedents to navigate India's legal landscape effectively.
Last Updated: Based on provided documents. Legal interpretations may evolve.
#CrPC188, #SupremeCourtIndia, #LegalPrecedents
C/SCA/1148/2019 ... came to be executed IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD of 9 of 9 C/SCA/1148
by the Supreme Court vide order dated 09.05.2022 passed in M.A. ... Secondly, the order dated 01.09.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in Priynaka’s case (supra) itself is confined to only those candidates who had approached the High Court or the Supreme Court before passing of the said order, as has been clarified ... Vide order dated 01.09.2021 (P-9) passed therein, the Supreme Court allowed the claim of the respondents and issued appropriate directions. ... The appellant then approached this Court by filin....
Court was pleased to pass the following Order: “Contempt Petition (C) No.1148/2019 in W.P. ... . 64 SEC-X IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA REVISED OFFICE – REPORT IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 1148
Union of India and Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No. 99/2018 dated 25th January, 2019, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follows: “52. ... (IB)-1148(PB)/2018, Manjula Khullar and Others vs. M/s. Krrish Shalimar Projects Pvt. Ltd. we have already initiated the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process vide order pronounced today i.e. 16.01.2019. ... The Adjudicating Authority by impugned order dated 16th January, 2019 admitted the application being C.P. No. (IB)-1148(PB)/2018.....
He was given his last annual increment on 1s July, 2019 and was denied the increment that fell due on 1% July, 2020 on the ground that he was not in service on the day when it fell due. OA 1148/2023 WITH MA 1761/2023 Ex Hav Birbal Singh3 4. ... OA 1148/2023 WITH MA 1761/2023 Ex Hav Birbal Singh6 8. From the aforesaid, it is clear that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CP. Mundinamani_and Ors. ... OA 1148/2023 WITH MA 1761/2023 Ex Hav Birbal Singh ... That being so, ....
He was given his last annual increment on 1s July, 2019 and was denied the increment that fell due on 1% July, 2020 on the ground that he was not in service on the day when it fell due. OA 1148/2023 WITH MA 1761/2023 Ex Hav Birbal Singh3 4. ... OA 1148/2023 WITH MA 1761/2023 Ex Hav Birbal Singh6 8. From the aforesaid, it is clear that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CP. Mundinamani_and Ors. ... OA 1148/2023 WITH MA 1761/2023 Ex Hav Birbal Singh ... That being so, ....
(IB)-1148(PB)/2018. ... (IB)-1148(PB)/2018 as withdrawn. ... (IB)-113(PB)/2019 stands disposed of. ... No.229 of 2019 in Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 79 of 2019 ... (IB)- 1148(PB)/2018, Manjula Khullar & Ors. v. M/s.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA INHERENT JURISDICTION REVIEW PETITION(CIVIL)NO.1148 OF 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.4252 OF 2019 AMINA BI KASKAR (D) THR.LRS. ... (C) No. 1149/2019 in C.A. No. 4253/2018 (FOR ADMISSION and IA No.70689/2018-ORAL HEARING) Date : 25-07-2019 These matters were circulated today. ... RESPONDENT(S) WITH REVIEW PETITION(CIVIL)NO.1149 OF 2019 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.4253 OF 2019 O R D E ... [ASHOK BH....
SHAH ) New Delhi, Dated: FEBRUARY 26, 2019 Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date: 2019.03.02 12:17:37 IST Reason: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION TRANSFER PETITION (CIVIL) NO.2212 OF 2017 Respondent(s) O R D E R This petition under Section 25 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Order XLI of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 has Petition No.1148 of 2017 titled as “Mayank Ranjan versus Sonam” pending before the Court of the Principal Judge, Family ....
No. 1148 of 2023. The said application is pending from the year 2023 and therefore, this petitioner seeks early disposal of the Cr. M.P. No. 1148 of 2023. 4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl. ... II, Kuzhithurai, Kanyakumari, to take a decision on the petitioner's application in the light of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwat Singh vs. ... The grievance of the petitioner is that this complaint was lodged by the petitioner in the year 2019 as against two persons that they have ch....
State of Haryana reported in MANU/SC/1148/2004, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in paragraph No.11 has observed the following:— At this juncture, we would like to rely upon the judgment of Pohlu vs.
Thus, contracts of a purely private nature would not be subject to writ jurisdiction merely by reason of the fact that they are structured by statutory provisions. Kago Kunya and others, 2019 SCC Online SC 501, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under :
Considering the orders passed in A.Nos.1100 and 1148 of 2019, A.Nos.9493 and 9766 of 2019 is closed. a. A. Nos.1100 and 1148 of 2019 is ordered only with reference to the A and B Schedule properties therein:
[2019 KHC 6559 : AIR 2019 SC 2390] the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus. 14. In Birla Corporation Ltd. and Another v. Adventz Investments and Holdings Ltd. and Others. The main question falling for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand whether temporary removal of the documents and using them in the litigations pending between the parties would amount to theft warranting lodging of a criminal complaint.
Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee, 2019 Supreme 125, (SC), 2019 SCC OnLine SC 139: as under:- On the power of the Court to order re-evaluation of answer-scripts, it would be relevant to reproduce paragraphs 13 to 21 of the case of High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General Vs. The next question to be considered is regarding the merits of the order.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
