Advocatemmmohan

we suspend the sentence and direct that the petitioners, (i) Selvi J.Jayalalithaa, (ii) Tmt.N.Sasikala, (iii) Mr.V.N. Sudhakaran, and (iv) TMT. J.Elasvarasi be released on bail on executing a bond with two solvent sureties by each of them to the satisfaction of the 36th Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge (Spl. Court for Trial of Criminal Cases against Kum. Jayalalitha & Ors) at Bangalore. = IA No. 1/2014 in Crl.Appeal No. 835 of 2014 passed by the High Court Of Karnataka At Bangalore) J JAYALALITHAA Petitioner(s) VERSUS STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DV AND AC, CHENNAI Respondent(s) (With office report) = 2014- Oct. Moth - http://supremecourtofindia.nic.in/outtoday/sr790014p-2014_10_17.pdf

we suspend

the sentence and direct that the

petitioners, 

(i) Selvi J.Jayalalithaa, 

(ii) Tmt.N.Sasikala, 

(iii) Mr.V.N. Sudhakaran,

and 

(iv) TMT. J.Elasvarasi be released on

bail on executing a bond with two solvent

sureties by each of them to the

satisfaction of the 36th Addl. City Civil &

Sessions Judge (Spl. Court for Trial of

Criminal Cases against Kum. Jayalalitha &

Ors) at Bangalore. 

201…

View On WordPress

coruscate

Ignite

the heart with smiles

it coruscate the whole life blissfully ………………advocatemmmohan

View On WordPress

Section 302/498-A read with Section 34 IPC - Except dying declaration - no corroboration evidence - conviction against co- accused - apex court held that Admittedly, they were not put on trial along with the main accused- appellant Mahender Singh. It was only at the stage of Section 319, Cr.P.C. the accused persons namely Prem Kumar Gulati and his wife were summoned and put on trial. Except dying declaration there is nothing on record to strongly suggest that they were involved in the commission of crime. There is nothing in the findings of sessions court which suggest that the said accused persons participated in the commission of the aforesaid crime, and this fact has been reiterated by the High Court also.PW-2, the police officer deposed that he recorded the statement of several persons and collected all the papers including ration card and compromise letter written to the Panchayat etc. He further deposed that during the investigation, the accused Prem Kumar and Bimla were found innocent as they were living separately. Although the trial court and the appellate court convicted both the accused Prem Kumar Gulati and his wife Bimla, but after scrutiny of all the evidence, we are of the view that there are no corroborative evidence to come to the conclusion that these two participated along with the main accused Mahender Singh for the commission of the offence. As noticed above, one of the accused Bimla already expired. We do not find any reason why Prem Kumar also participated in the commission of the offence. Admittedly, neither in the dying declaration nor in the statement of witnesses it has come in light as to what act was done by the accused- Prem Kumar.In our considered opinion, the benefit of doubt should be given to accused-appellant Prem Kumar and his conviction cannot be sustained.Criminal Appeal No.1422 of 2009 is allowed and the appellant Prem Kumar Gulati is acquitted from charges. He is directed to be released forthwith.= CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1422 OF 2009 Prem Kumar Gulati ….Appellant Versus State of Haryana and another ..Respondents = 2014- Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41951

Section 302/498-A read with Section 34 IPC – Except dying declaration – no corroboration evidence –  conviction  against co- accused – apex court held that  Admittedly, they were not put on trial along with  the  main  accused- appellant Mahender Singh.  It was only at the stage of Section 319,  Cr.P.C. the accused persons namely Prem Kumar Gulati and his wife were summoned  and put on trial.…

View On WordPress

Hats off to our CM

So many 

dreams how cute they are

unfurls one by one like petals while blooming

 but apocalyptic Hudhud destroys all how sad it is

Hats off to our CM for his dedication in wiping the tears……..advocatemmmohan

View On WordPress

Hindu Marriage Act - Mental curelty - Apex court held that Undoubtedly, not allowing a spouse for a long time, to have sexual intercourse by his or her partner, without sufficient reason, itself amounts mental cruelty to such spouse. = CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9036 OF 2014 (Arising out of S.L.P.(c) No.25056 of 2012) VIDHYA VISWANATHAN … APPELLANT VERSUS KARTIK BALAKRISHNAN … RESPONDENT = 2014 - Sept.Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41950

  Hindu Marriage Act – Mental curelty – Apex court held that  Undoubtedly, not allowing a spouse for a long  time,  to  have  sexual intercourse by  his  or  her  partner,  without  sufficient  reason,  itself amounts mental cruelty to such spouse. =

“ 44.  It has to be further pointed out that  while  P.W.1  was  cross

examined by the respondent, it has not  been  suggested  to  P.W.1  that  he

View On WordPress

live as you like

like air

No taste

No colour

No shape 

still no life with out you

God left you with a choice to live as you like ………….advocatemmmohan

View On WordPress

Hey Drop

where you are

dancing on the clouds

jumping in the lakes & meadows

far far far away from the sea shores

one day has to come to the shores of life

all drops ultimately have to merge into the ocean……………..advocatemmmohan

View On WordPress

ignore it

However

thorny the pedestal is

No flower counts any hardships

Happily dances on the tip of green stem

However hard the life is ignore it for blissful life…………advocatemmmohan

View On WordPress

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, - Disputes arose - Arbitrator passed award - filed petition to cancellation - High court declined - DB also rejected - Apex court held that As noticed above, the parties have entered into concluded contract, agreeing terms and conditions of the said contract, which was finally acted upon. In such a case, the parties to the said contract cannot back out and challenge the award on the ground that the same is against the public policy. Even assuming the ground available to the appellant, the award cannot be set aside as because it is not contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law or against the interest of India or on the ground of patent illegality.= CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10849 of 2013) Swan Gold Mining Ltd. …Appellant (s) Versus Hindustan Copper Ltd. …Respondent(s) = 2014- Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41946

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, – Disputes arose – Arbitrator passed award – filed petition to cancellation – High court declined – DB also rejected – Apex court held that As noticed above, the parties have entered into concluded contract, agreeing terms and conditions of the said contract, which was finally acted upon. In such a case, the parties to the said contract cannot back out and challenge the award on the ground that the same is against the public policy. Even assuming the ground available to the appellant, the award cannot be set aside as because it is not contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law or against the interest of India or on the ground of patent illegality.= CIVIL APPEAL NO.9048 OF 2014 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10849 of 2013) Swan Gold Mining Ltd. …Appellant (s) Versus Hindustan Copper Ltd. …Respondent(s) = 2014- Sept. Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41946

Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, – Disputes arose – Arbitrator passed award – filed petition to cancellation – High court declined – DB also rejected – Apex court held that As noticed above, the  parties  have  entered into  concluded  contract,  agreeing  terms  and  conditions  of  the   said contract, which was finally acted upon.  In such a case, the parties to  the said…

View On WordPress

Environment Protection Act, 1986. - Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) were enacted (w.e.f.19th February, 1991) - The guidelines,-Hotels, Beach Resorts and Beach Bungalows in Goa - orders to demolish as the buildings were situated with in 500 meters from HTL permitted - High court allowed the Writ Pil - Apex court held that admittedly the all the buildings constructed before the commencement of the Act and guidelines which are not gazetted no force of law - all are prospective - and as such the apex court held that Violation of Article 21 on account of alleged environmental violation cannot be subjectively and individually determined when parameters of permissible/impermissible conduct are required to be legislatively or statutorily determined under Sections 3 and 6 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 which has been so done by bringing into force the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification w.e.f. 19th February, 1991.In view of the foregoing discussion, the orders impugned in the writ petitions filed by the appellants cannot be sustained. Consequently, the said orders as well as each of the orders dated 13th July, 2000 passed by the High Court of Bombay will have to be set aside which we hereby do while allowing the appeals.=CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3434-3435 OF 2001 GULF GOANS HOTELS CO. LTD. & ANR….APPELLANTS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS = 2014 - Sept. Month - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41945

Environment Protection Act, 1986. – Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) were enacted (w.e.f.19th February, 1991) – The guidelines,-Hotels, Beach Resorts and Beach Bungalows in Goa – orders to demolish as the buildings were situated with in 500 meters from HTL permitted – High court allowed the Writ Pil – Apex court held that admittedly the all the buildings constructed before the commencement of the Act and guidelines which are not gazetted no force of law – all are prospective – and as such the apex court held that Violation of Article 21 on account of alleged environmental violation cannot be subjectively and individually determined when parameters of permissible/impermissible conduct are required to be legislatively or statutorily determined under Sections 3 and 6 of the Environment Protection Act, 1986 which has been so done by bringing into force the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) Notification w.e.f. 19th February, 1991.In view of the foregoing discussion, the orders impugned in the writ petitions filed by the appellants cannot be sustained. Consequently, the said orders as well as each of the orders dated 13th July, 2000 passed by the High Court of Bombay will have to be set aside which we hereby do while allowing the appeals.=CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3434-3435 OF 2001 GULF GOANS HOTELS CO. LTD. & ANR….APPELLANTS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. …RESPONDENTS = 2014 – Sept. Month – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41945

 Environment  Protection Act, 1986. – Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) were enacted  (w.e.f.19th

February, 1991) – The   guidelines,-Hotels,  Beach  Resorts  and  Beach Bungalows in Goa – orders to demolish as the buildings were situated with in 500 meters from HTL permitted – High court allowed the Writ Pil – Apex court held that admittedly the all the buildings constructed before the commencement…

View On WordPress