Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2003)1GLR686; JT2002(2)SC431
1. Leave granted.2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.3. Normally, this Court does not interfere in the bail matters and the orders of High Court are generally accepted to be final relating to grant or rejection of bail. However, it is really unfortunate that without considering the nature and gravity of offence, the High Court of Gujarat without recording any reasons has set aside the well-reasoned order passed by the trial court, refusing the bait to the accused involved in an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Apart from the serious allegations made against the accused, it has been pointed out that while rejecting the bail application, that court has taken into consideration the following facts:"While taking into consideration the provisions of Section 149 of IPC to my mind, (here is substantial allegation of serious offence against all the five accused of causing death by causing injuries with weapon like knife to the deceased Pareshbhai...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : (2002)9SCC460
R.C. Lahoti and; Brijesh Kumar, JJ.1. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions.2. The appellant preferred the objections under Order 21 Rule 97 CPC offering resistance to execution of decree, wherein he was not a party. Vide order dated 30-5-2000, his application was rejected by the executing court. He preferred an appeal which was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 122 of 2000 in the Court of District Judge, Lucknow. On 10-8-2000, the appeal was allowed. The order of the executing court was set aside and the case was remanded back to the executing court with a direction to decide the objections of the appellant afresh in accordance with law. This order was put in issue by the decree-holder by filing a civil writ petition before the High Court, which was allowed. The High Court quashed the order of the District Judge dated 10-8-2000, forming an opinion that the appellant should have preferred a revision and not an appeal and therefore, the order of the District Judge, pass...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Supreme Court of India
Reported in : AIR2002SC971; 2002(2)ALLMR(SC)264; 2002(2)BLJR877; I(2002)DMC321SC; [2002(2)JCR71(SC)]; JT2002(1)SC478; (2002)2MLJ51(SC); RLW2002(2)SC219; 2002(1)SCALE534; (2002)2SCC637; 2
The appellant in this appeal was the defendant in O.S.No.156 of 1982 before the Principle Munsif Bijapur, which suit was filed by the respondent plaintiff praying for a declaration that a divorce deed dated 26th of June, 1982 executed by her was obtained by coercion and threat and for cancellation of the same. The said suit came to be dismissed by the trial court and an appeal against the said judgment being dismissed, the respondent plaintiff appealed to the High Court. The High Court in a second appeal has reversed the finding of the courts below and has decreed the suit with a further direction that the concerned District Judge should file a complaint against the plaintiff for an offence committed by him against his wife within three months from the date of the receipt of the said judgment. As noted above, the appellant plaintiff is before us in this appeal.We will refer to the parties in their status in which they were arrayed in the trial court.The case of the plaintiff in the tri...
Tag this Judgment!