Advocatemmmohan

Conflicting Decisions - No - whether the excess payment can be recovered paid by the fault of employer / can not be refunded, paid due to bonafide mistake of employer - Excess payment made to employees for no fault of them - can not be recoverable by employer after belated stage - Excess payment received by Employee -liable to be refunded like recovery of excess tax payments as no one can enrich wrongfully - Apex court held that for decisions is an equitable relief under Art.142 ,given under facts and circumstances of that case and is not binding precedent and Apex court further held that the later decisions is a declaration of law under Art.136 is binding on all as no one can enrich wrongfully and when it came to know his knowledge , he is liable to refund the same like income tax department and as such returned the reference and remanded the case to decided as per law = STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. PETITIONER(S) VERSUS RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) RESPONDENT(S) = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41794

Conflicting Decisions – No – whether the excess payment can be recovered paid by the fault of employer / can not be refunded, paid due to bonafide mistake of employer – Excess payment made to employees for no fault of them – can not be recoverable by employer after belated stage – Excess payment received by Employee -liable to be refunded like recovery of excess tax payments as no one can enrich wrongfully – Apex court held that for decisions is an equitable relief under Art.142 ,given under facts and circumstances of that case and is not binding precedent and Apex court further held that the later decisions is a declaration of law under Art.136 is binding on all as no one can enrich wrongfully and when it came to know his knowledge , he is liable to refund the same like income tax department and as such returned the reference and remanded the case to decided as per law = STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. PETITIONER(S) VERSUS RAFIQ MASIH (WHITE WASHER) RESPONDENT(S) = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41794

Conflicting Decisions – No – whether the excess payment can  be recovered  paid by the fault of employer / can not be refunded, paid due to bonafide mistake of employer –  Excess payment made to employees for no fault of them – can not be recoverable by employer after belated stage – Excess payment received by Employee -liable to be refunded like recovery of excess tax payments as no one can…

View On WordPress

Sec.302 - Murder of Wife - Circumstantial evidence - last seen theory - Accused in the last night with his wife - Sec.313 - non-explanation about his where abouts at the time of death which took place in the last night, by accused - recovery of assaulted weapon - clearly discloses the Accused is an offender - Apex court dismissed the appeal = KHIM SINGH … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND … RESPONDENT = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41755

Sec.302 – Murder of Wife – Circumstantial evidence – last seen theory – Accused in the last night with his wife – Sec.313 – non-explanation about his where abouts at the time of death which took place in the last night, by accused – recovery of assaulted weapon – clearly discloses the Accused is an offender – Apex court dismissed the appeal = KHIM SINGH … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND … RESPONDENT = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41755

Sec.302 – Murder of Wife – Circumstantial evidence – last seen theory –  Accused in the last night with his wife – Sec.313 – non-explanation about his where abouts at the time of death which took place in the last night, by accused – recovery of assaulted weapon – clearly discloses the Accused is an offender – Apex court dismissed the appeal =

The accused in his statement under Section 313…

View On WordPress

Sec.498 A, 304 B , 306 I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. - Trial court convicted the accused - High court acquitted the accused - Apex court held that In the present case from the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly of Santoshbai (PW-6), Geeta (PW-7), Chandrakanta (PW-8), Ranjit (PW-9) and Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-11), we find that the harassment of the deceased was with a view to coerce her to convince her parents to meet demand of dowry. The said willful conduct has driven the deceased to commit the suicide or not is a matter of doubt, in absence of specific evidence. Therefore, in the light of Clause (b) of Section 498-A IPC, when we hold all the accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased committed suicide. The accused are, therefore, acquitted for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. This part of the judgment passed by the Trial Court thus cannot be upheld. The prosecution on the basis of evidence has successfully proved that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage; the death of the deceased is caused by burns i.e. nor under normal circumstances. It has also been proved that soon before her death, during her pregnancy the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and relatives of accused that is accused No.1-Shivpujan, accused No.2-Rajendra, accused No.3-Malti Devi, accused No.4-Anita, accused No.5-Surendra and accused No.6-Virendra in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution successfully proved with beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 6 are guilty for the offence under Section 304-B, r/w 34 IPC. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the major part of the judgment dated 18th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal NO.388 of 2005 except the part relating to offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. = STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … APPELLANT VERSUS RAJENDRA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41754

Sec.498 A, 304 B , 306 I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. – Trial court convicted the accused – High court acquitted the accused – Apex court held that In the present case from the evidence of prosecution witnesses particularly of Santoshbai (PW-6), Geeta (PW-7), Chandrakanta (PW-8), Ranjit (PW-9) and Ranchhod Prasad Pande (PW-11), we find that the harassment of the deceased was with a view to coerce her to convince her parents to meet demand of dowry. The said willful conduct has driven the deceased to commit the suicide or not is a matter of doubt, in absence of specific evidence. Therefore, in the light of Clause (b) of Section 498-A IPC, when we hold all the accused Nos.1 to 6 guilty for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, we hold that the prosecution failed to prove that the deceased committed suicide. The accused are, therefore, acquitted for the offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. This part of the judgment passed by the Trial Court thus cannot be upheld. The prosecution on the basis of evidence has successfully proved that the deceased died within 7 years of her marriage; the death of the deceased is caused by burns i.e. nor under normal circumstances. It has also been proved that soon before her death, during her pregnancy the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband and relatives of accused that is accused No.1-Shivpujan, accused No.2-Rajendra, accused No.3-Malti Devi, accused No.4-Anita, accused No.5-Surendra and accused No.6-Virendra in connection with demand of dowry. Therefore, we hold that the prosecution successfully proved with beyond reasonable doubt that accused Nos.1 to 6 are guilty for the offence under Section 304-B, r/w 34 IPC. For the reasons aforesaid, we set aside the major part of the judgment dated 18th August, 2005 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Appeal NO.388 of 2005 except the part relating to offence under Section 306 r/w 34 IPC. = STATE OF MAHARASHTRA … APPELLANT VERSUS RAJENDRA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41754

Sec.498 A, 304 B , 306 I.P.C. r/w 34 I.P.C. – Trial court convicted the accused – High court acquitted the accused – Apex court held that In the  present  case  from  the  evidence  of  prosecution  witnesses particularly  of  Santoshbai  (PW-6),  Geeta  (PW-7),  Chandrakanta  (PW-8), Ranjit  (PW-9)  and  Ranchhod  Prasad  Pande  (PW-11),  we  find  that   the harassment of the deceased was with…

View On WordPress

Death - Strangulation - Case Reg. under sec.174 Cr.P.C. as Suicide & Reported - after one year Fir was Reg. under sec.302/34 - Trial convicted the accused - High court confirmed the same though find that prosecution acted biased - Apex court held that material omissions like non-explanation of delay of one year in registering FIR, non-marking of Marg report reg. under sec.174 Cr.P.C. - Balram Singh, Assistant Sub- Inspector of Mau Police Station, who registered the Marg under Section 174 CrPC was not examined in the trial - non-explanation of Eye witnesses from lodging FIR against the accused immediately - examination of additional new witnesses after one year of the FIR - a slipshod investigation - though high court found the latches but simply discarded without assigning valid reasons High court fell in error and as such Apex court set aside convict orders of lower courts as prosecution failed to prove it’s case beyond all reasonable doubts and acquitted the accused by allowing appeal =Sobaran Singh & Ors. .. Appellant(s) versus State of M.P. .. Respondent(s) =2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41753

Death – Strangulation – Case Reg. under sec.174 Cr.P.C. as Suicide & Reported – after one year Fir was Reg. under sec.302/34 – Trial convicted the accused – High court confirmed the same though find that prosecution acted biased – Apex court held that material omissions like non-explanation of delay of one year in registering FIR, non-marking of Marg report reg. under sec.174 Cr.P.C. – Balram Singh, Assistant Sub- Inspector of Mau Police Station, who registered the Marg under Section 174 CrPC was not examined in the trial – non-explanation of Eye witnesses from lodging FIR against the accused immediately – examination of additional new witnesses after one year of the FIR – a slipshod investigation – though high court found the latches but simply discarded without assigning valid reasons High court fell in error and as such Apex court set aside convict orders of lower courts as prosecution failed to prove it’s case beyond all reasonable doubts and acquitted the accused by allowing appeal =Sobaran Singh & Ors. .. Appellant(s) versus State of M.P. .. Respondent(s) =2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41753

Death – Strangulation – Case Reg. under sec.174 Cr.P.C. as Suicide & Reported – after one year Fir was Reg. under sec.302/34 – Trial convicted the accused – High court confirmed the same though find that prosecution acted biased – Apex court held that material omissions like non-explanation of delay of one year in registering FIR, non-marking of Marg report reg. under sec.174 Cr.P.C. – Balram…

View On WordPress

Sec.138 and sec.141 of N.I. Act - Whether the complaint against the accused alone maintainable leaving the company set free -NO - High court quashed the summons issued against the company by trial court and confirmed the summons issued against the appellant - Apex court held that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the drag-net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh17 which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada is overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51. The decision in Modi Distillery has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove.” In the present case, the High Court by impugned judgment dated 13th August, 2007 held that the complaint against respondent no.2-Company was not maintainable and quashed the summon issued by the Trial Court against respondent no.2-Company. Thereby, the Company being not a party to the proceedings under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act and in view of the fact that part of the judgment referred to by the High Court in Anil Hada (supra) has been overruled by three Judge Bench of this Court in Aneeta Hada (supra), we have no other option but to set aside the rest part of the impugned judgment whereby the High Court held that the proceedings against the appellant can be continued even in absence of the Company. We, accordingly, set aside that part of the impugned judgment dated 13th August, 2007 passed by the High Court so far it relates to appellant and quash the summon and proceeding pursuant to complaint case No.698 of 2001 qua the appellant.The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observation.=Anil Gupta … APPELLANT VERSUS Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41752

Sec.138 and sec.141 of N.I. Act – Whether the complaint against the accused alone maintainable leaving the company set free -NO – High court quashed the summons issued against the company by trial court and confirmed the summons issued against the appellant – Apex court held that for maintaining the prosecution under Section 141 of the Act, arraigning of a company as an accused is imperative. The other categories of offenders can only be brought in the drag-net on the touchstone of vicarious liability as the same has been stipulated in the provision itself. We say so on the basis of the ratio laid down in C.V. Parekh17 which is a three-Judge Bench decision. Thus, the view expressed in Sheoratan Agarwal does not correctly lay down the law and, accordingly, is hereby overruled. The decision in Anil Hada is overruled with the qualifier as stated in para 51. The decision in Modi Distillery has to be treated to be restricted to its own facts as has been explained by us hereinabove.” In the present case, the High Court by impugned judgment dated 13th August, 2007 held that the complaint against respondent no.2-Company was not maintainable and quashed the summon issued by the Trial Court against respondent no.2-Company. Thereby, the Company being not a party to the proceedings under Section 138 read with Section 141 of the Act and in view of the fact that part of the judgment referred to by the High Court in Anil Hada (supra) has been overruled by three Judge Bench of this Court in Aneeta Hada (supra), we have no other option but to set aside the rest part of the impugned judgment whereby the High Court held that the proceedings against the appellant can be continued even in absence of the Company. We, accordingly, set aside that part of the impugned judgment dated 13th August, 2007 passed by the High Court so far it relates to appellant and quash the summon and proceeding pursuant to complaint case No.698 of 2001 qua the appellant.The appeal is allowed with aforesaid observation.=Anil Gupta … APPELLANT VERSUS Star India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41752

Sec.138 and sec.141 of N.I. Act - Whether the complaint against the accused alone maintainable leaving the company set free  -NO – High court quashed the summons issued against the company by trial court and confirmed the summons issued against the appellant – Apex court held that for maintaining the prosecution under  Section  141  of  the Act, arraigning of  a  company  as  an  accused  is…

View On WordPress

Service matter - VRS scheme 2000 - Pension Who completed 20 years of service are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29 by the date of VRS - Regulations 28 , 29 and Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 - High court relying on earlier DB bench judgement of Punjab National Bank dismissed the writ petition as the employees who took voluntary service not completed the requisite period for granting pension - Apex court held that Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 provides that if broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year. Therefore, all the respondents-writ petitioners having completed more than 19 years and 6 months of service in the Bank, they are to be treated to have completed 20 years of service. The aforesaid question was neither raised nor decided in the case of ‘Bank of Baroda’ or ‘Bank of India’. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appellant-Bank cannot derive the benefit of the decision of this Court in Bank of Baroda as the employees who were parties before the Court in the said case had not completed 20 years of service. As per the decision of this Court in Bank of India, the respondents-writ petitioners having completed 20 years of service are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29.In view of the finding recorded above, the appeals do not have merit in reference with the impugned judgment,they are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. = STATE OF BANK OF PATIALA … APPELLANT VERSUS PRITAM SINGH BEDI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41751

Service matter – VRS scheme 2000 – Pension Who completed 20 years of service are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29 by the date of VRS – Regulations 28 , 29 and Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 – High court relying on earlier DB bench judgement of Punjab National Bank dismissed the writ petition as the employees who took voluntary service not completed the requisite period for granting pension – Apex court held that Regulation 18 of the Pension Regulations, 1995 provides that if broken period is more than six months, it shall be treated as one year. Therefore, all the respondents-writ petitioners having completed more than 19 years and 6 months of service in the Bank, they are to be treated to have completed 20 years of service. The aforesaid question was neither raised nor decided in the case of ‘Bank of Baroda’ or ‘Bank of India’. In view of the aforesaid fact, the appellant-Bank cannot derive the benefit of the decision of this Court in Bank of Baroda as the employees who were parties before the Court in the said case had not completed 20 years of service. As per the decision of this Court in Bank of India, the respondents-writ petitioners having completed 20 years of service are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29.In view of the finding recorded above, the appeals do not have merit in reference with the impugned judgment,they are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs. = STATE OF BANK OF PATIALA … APPELLANT VERSUS PRITAM SINGH BEDI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41751

 Service matter – VRS scheme 2000 – Pension  Who completed  20  years  of  service  are entitled to the benefit of Regulation 29 by the date of VRS - Regulations 28 , 29 and Regulation 18 of  the  Pension  Regulations,  1995 -  High court relying on earlier DB bench judgement of Punjab National Bank dismissed the writ petition  as the employees who took voluntary service not completed…

View On WordPress

Sec.226,227 and 228 of Cr.P.C.- one out of 3 no charge sheet was filed under sec.302 I.P.C. - but committal court famed charge under sec.302 of I.P.C against this accused too - challanged - high court dismissed the writ for quashing - Apex court held that In this case, it is not alleged that the Sessions Judge has not followed Sections 226 and 227 Cr.P.C before framing the charge. Further, it is not the case of the appellant that the court has not given him hearing at the stage of discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C. For framing of charge u/s 228, the judge is not required to record detail reasons as to why such charge is framed. On perusal of record and hearing the parties at the stage of discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C. if the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, he is competent to frame charge for such offence even if not mentioned in the charge sheet. We find no merit in this appeal.= DINESH TIWARI … APPELLANT Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41750

Sec.226,227 and 228 of Cr.P.C.- one out of 3 no charge sheet was filed under sec.302 I.P.C. – but committal court famed charge under sec.302 of I.P.C against this accused too – challanged – high court dismissed the writ for quashing – Apex court held that In this case, it is not alleged that the Sessions Judge has not followed Sections 226 and 227 Cr.P.C before framing the charge. Further, it is not the case of the appellant that the court has not given him hearing at the stage of discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C. For framing of charge u/s 228, the judge is not required to record detail reasons as to why such charge is framed. On perusal of record and hearing the parties at the stage of discharge u/s 227 Cr.P.C. if the Judge is of opinion that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence, he is competent to frame charge for such offence even if not mentioned in the charge sheet. We find no merit in this appeal.= DINESH TIWARI … APPELLANT Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41750

Sec.226,227 and 228 of Cr.P.C.- one out of 3 no charge sheet was filed under sec.302 I.P.C. – but committal court  famed charge under sec.302 of I.P.C against this accused too – challanged – high court dismissed the writ for quashing – Apex court held that In this case, it is not  alleged  that  the  Sessions  Judge  has  not followed Sections 226 and 227 Cr.P.C before framing the charge.…

View On WordPress

Service matter - Dismissed from service for unauthorized absent - refused to receive the witnesses and refused to receive Medical certificates - Single judge High court allowed the writ and set aside the dismissal order - DB bench reversed the single Judge - Apex court set aside the order of DB and held that In his reply, the appellant has taken the plea that he was seriously ill between 11.12.89 and 24.10.90, which was beyond his control; he never intended to contravene any of the provisions of the service regulations. He submitted the copies of medical certificates issued by Doctors in support of his claim after rejoining the post. The medical reports were submitted after about 24 days. There was no allegation that the appellant’s unauthorized absence from duty was willful and deliberate.The Inquiry Officer has also not held that appellant’s absence from duty was willful and deliberate. It is neither case of the Disciplinary Authority nor the Inquiry Officer that the medical reports submitted by the appellant were forged or fabricated or obtained for any consideration though he was not ill during the said period. In absence of such evidence and finding, it was not open to the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority to disbelieve the medical certificates issued by the Doctors without any valid reason and on the ground of 24 days delay.=CHHEL SINGH … APPELLANT VERSUS M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK PALI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41749

Service matter – Dismissed from service for unauthorized absent – refused to receive the witnesses and refused to receive Medical certificates – Single judge High court allowed the writ and set aside the dismissal order – DB bench reversed the single Judge – Apex court set aside the order of DB and held that In his reply, the appellant has taken the plea that he was seriously ill between 11.12.89 and 24.10.90, which was beyond his control; he never intended to contravene any of the provisions of the service regulations. He submitted the copies of medical certificates issued by Doctors in support of his claim after rejoining the post. The medical reports were submitted after about 24 days. There was no allegation that the appellant’s unauthorized absence from duty was willful and deliberate.The Inquiry Officer has also not held that appellant’s absence from duty was willful and deliberate. It is neither case of the Disciplinary Authority nor the Inquiry Officer that the medical reports submitted by the appellant were forged or fabricated or obtained for any consideration though he was not ill during the said period. In absence of such evidence and finding, it was not open to the Inquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority to disbelieve the medical certificates issued by the Doctors without any valid reason and on the ground of 24 days delay.=CHHEL SINGH … APPELLANT VERSUS M.G.B. GRAMIN BANK PALI & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41749

 Service matter – Dismissed from service for unauthorized absent – refused to receive the witnesses and refused to receive Medical certificates – Single judge High court allowed the writ and set aside the dismissal order – DB bench reversed the single Judge – Apex court  set aside the order of DB and held that  In his reply, the appellant has taken  the  plea  that he was seriously ill between…

View On WordPress

Sec.19 of Consumer Act - Whether the National Consumer Forum can grant stay orders at appeal stage - much more conditional Stay orders - Apex court held that It is not the case of any of the appellants that the Consumer Forum including State and National Commissions has no power to pass interim order of stay. If the National Commission after hearing the appeal of the parties in its discretion wants to stay the amount awarded, it is open to the National Commission to pass an appropriate interim order including conditional order of stay. Entertainment of an appeal and stay of proceeding pursuant to order impugned in the appeal stands at different footings, at two different stages. One (pre-deposit) has no nexus with merit of the appeal and the other (grant of stay) depends on prima facie case; balance of convenience and irreparable loss of party seeking such stay. In view of the finding recorded above, the interference with the impugned order dated 15th May, 2012 passed by the National Commission is not called for.=M/s Shreenath Corp. & Ors. … APPELLANT VERSUS Consumer Education & Research Society & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41748

Sec.19 of Consumer Act – Whether the National Consumer Forum can grant stay orders at appeal stage – much more conditional Stay orders – Apex court held that It is not the case of any of the appellants that the Consumer Forum including State and National Commissions has no power to pass interim order of stay. If the National Commission after hearing the appeal of the parties in its discretion wants to stay the amount awarded, it is open to the National Commission to pass an appropriate interim order including conditional order of stay. Entertainment of an appeal and stay of proceeding pursuant to order impugned in the appeal stands at different footings, at two different stages. One (pre-deposit) has no nexus with merit of the appeal and the other (grant of stay) depends on prima facie case; balance of convenience and irreparable loss of party seeking such stay. In view of the finding recorded above, the interference with the impugned order dated 15th May, 2012 passed by the National Commission is not called for.=M/s Shreenath Corp. & Ors. … APPELLANT VERSUS Consumer Education & Research Society & ORS. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41748

Sec.19 of Consumer Act – Whether the National Consumer Forum can grant stay orders at appeal stage – much more conditional Stay orders – Apex court held that It is not the case of any of the appellants that  the Consumer  Forum including State and National Commissions has no power to pass interim  order of stay. If the National Commission after hearing the appeal of the  parties in its discretion…

View On WordPress

whether Dar-ul-Qaza is a parallel court and ‘Fatwa’ has any legal status. - Apex court held that Dar-ul-Qaza is neither created nor sanctioned by any law made by the competent legislature. Therefore, the opinion or the Fatwa issued by Dar-ul-Qaza or for that matter anybody is not adjudication of dispute by an authority under a judicial system sanctioned by law. A Qazi or Mufti has no authority or powers to impose his opinion and enforce his Fatwa on any one by any coercive method. In fact, whatever may be the status of Fatwa during Mogul or British Rule, it has no place in independent India under our Constitutional scheme. It has no legal sanction and can not be enforced by any legal process either by the Dar-ul-Qaza issuing that or the person concerned or for that matter anybody. The person or the body concerned may ignore it and it will not be necessary for anybody to challenge it before any court of law. It can simply be ignored. In case any person or body tries to impose it, their act would be illegal. and further held that We would like to advise the Dar-ul-Qaza or for that matter anybody not to give any response or issue Fatwa concerning an individual, unless asked for by the person involved or the person having direct interest in the matter. However, in a case the person involved or the person directly interested or likely to be affected being incapacitated, by any person having some interest in the matter. Issuance of Fatwa on rights, status and obligation of individual Muslim, in our opinion, would not be permissible, unless asked for by the person concerned or in case of incapacity, by the person interested. (imrana case) Fatwas touching upon the rights of an individual at the instance of rank strangers may cause irreparable damage and therefore, would be absolutely uncalled for. It shall be in violation of basic human rights. It cannot be used to punish innocent. No religion including Islam punishes the innocent. Religion cannot be allowed to be merciless to the victim. Faith cannot be used as dehumanising force. Apex court dismissed the writ as it was filed with misconception . = VISHWA LOCHAN MADAN ….. PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …. RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41746

whether Dar-ul-Qaza is a parallel court and ‘Fatwa’ has any legal status. – Apex court held that Dar-ul-Qaza is neither created nor sanctioned by any law made by the competent legislature. Therefore, the opinion or the Fatwa issued by Dar-ul-Qaza or for that matter anybody is not adjudication of dispute by an authority under a judicial system sanctioned by law. A Qazi or Mufti has no authority or powers to impose his opinion and enforce his Fatwa on any one by any coercive method. In fact, whatever may be the status of Fatwa during Mogul or British Rule, it has no place in independent India under our Constitutional scheme. It has no legal sanction and can not be enforced by any legal process either by the Dar-ul-Qaza issuing that or the person concerned or for that matter anybody. The person or the body concerned may ignore it and it will not be necessary for anybody to challenge it before any court of law. It can simply be ignored. In case any person or body tries to impose it, their act would be illegal. and further held that We would like to advise the Dar-ul-Qaza or for that matter anybody not to give any response or issue Fatwa concerning an individual, unless asked for by the person involved or the person having direct interest in the matter. However, in a case the person involved or the person directly interested or likely to be affected being incapacitated, by any person having some interest in the matter. Issuance of Fatwa on rights, status and obligation of individual Muslim, in our opinion, would not be permissible, unless asked for by the person concerned or in case of incapacity, by the person interested. (imrana case) Fatwas touching upon the rights of an individual at the instance of rank strangers may cause irreparable damage and therefore, would be absolutely uncalled for. It shall be in violation of basic human rights. It cannot be used to punish innocent. No religion including Islam punishes the innocent. Religion cannot be allowed to be merciless to the victim. Faith cannot be used as dehumanising force. Apex court dismissed the writ as it was filed with misconception . = VISHWA LOCHAN MADAN ….. PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …. RESPONDENTS = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41746

whether Dar-ul-Qaza is a parallel court and  ‘Fatwa’  has  any legal status. - Apex court held that  Dar-ul-Qaza  is  neither  created nor sanctioned by any law made by  the  competent  legislature.   Therefore, the opinion or the Fatwa issued by Dar-ul-Qaza or for  that  matter  anybody is not adjudication of dispute by  an  authority  under  a  judicial  system sanctioned by law.  A Qazi or…

View On WordPress