Supreme Court Judgments 2022
by: Adv. Kishan Dutt Kalaskar 2022-11-02 17:33:56
by: Adv. Kishan Dutt Kalaskar 2022-11-02 17:33:56
by: Admin 2022-06-15 18:50:14
by: Admin 2022-06-15 17:09:55
by: Admin 2022-04-28 20:02:29
by: Admin 2022-04-28 19:00:07
by: Admin 2022-04-28 14:03:30
Supreme Court Judgments 2022
Mohan Breweries & Distilleries V/s Commercial Tax officer, Madras
Kavita Kanwar Vs. Mrs Pamela Mehta & Ors
Parminder Kaur V/s State of Punjab
Central Bank of India V/s M/S Maruti Acetylene Co. Ltd.
Goan Real Estate and Construction Ltd. And Anr. V/s Union of India
Raj Kumar V/s Ajay Kumar
Dr. M. Kocher V/s Ispita Seal
Smt. Seema Kumar V/s Ashwin Kumar
Leo Francis Xaviour V/s The Principal, Karunya Institute
Nazir Mohamed V/s J. Kamala and Ors.
Addissery Raghavan V/s Cheruvalath Krishnadasan
Himalaya House Co. Ltd. Bombay V/s Chief Controlling Revenue
K. Sivaram V/s P. Satishkmar
Basir Ahmed Sisodia V/s The Income Tax Officer
Manish V/s Nidhi Kakkar
Surendra Kumar Bhilawe V/s The New India Assurance Company
D. Velusamy V/s D. Patchaimmal
Life Insurance Corporation of India V/s Mukesh Poonamchand Shah
Neelam Gupta Vs Mahipal Sharan Gupta
Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade V/s Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade
G. Raj Mallaih and Anr. V/s State of Andhra Pradesh
Zee Entertainment Enterprise Ltd. V/s Suresh Production
Chief Administrator of Huda &Anr. v/s Shakuntala Devi
Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprise v/s Ks Infraspace LLP
National Legal Service Authority v/s Union of India and Others
Roxann Sharma V/s Arun Sharma
Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur V/s State Bank of India &Anr.
M/s M.M.T.C Ltd. & Anr v/s M/s Medchl Chemical & Pharma P
Shailendra Swarup V/s Enforcement Directorate, The Deputy
SunitaTokas v/s New India Insurance Ltd.
Triloki Nath Singh V/s Anirudh Singh
Milmet Oftho & Ors. V/s Allergan Inc.
Director of Income Tax II (International Taxation) V/s M/s Samsung Heavy Industries Co. Ltd.
M/s ExL Careers V/s Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt. Ltd.
The Maharashtra State Cooperative Bank Ltd V/s Babulal Lade & Ors.
State of Himachal Pradesh V/s A parent of a student of a Medical College & Ors.
Rathnamma & Ors. V/s Sujathamma & Ors.
Ravinder Kaur Grewal V/s Manjit Kaur
Ficus Pax Pvt. Ltd. V/s Union of Indian & Ors.
Commissioner of Income Tax V/s Chandra Sekhar
Judgment: Indian Bank V/s Abs Marine Product Pvt. Ltd.
Kailas & Ors. V/s State of Maharashtra
Sukhedu Das Vs Rita Mukherjee
National Insurance Co. Ltd V/s Hindustan Safety Glass Works
Mahalakshmi V/s Bala Venkatram (d) through LR & Anr.
Kajal V/s Jagdish Chand
Shyamal Kumar V/s Sushil Kumar Agarwal
Megha Khandelwal V/s Rajat Khandelwal and Ors.
Md. Eqbal & Anrs. V/s State of Jharkhand
A. Jayachandra V/s Aneelkaur
Union of India V/s N. K. Shrivasta
Satvinder Singh V/s State of Bihar
Shreya Singhal V/s Union of India
Shaleen Kabra V/s Shiwani Kabra
Vasant Kumar V/s Vijaykumari
United Commercial Bank & Anr. V/s Deepak Debbarma & others
Vinay Kumar Mittal & Others V/s Deewan Housing Financial Corporation Limited
Mohammed Siddique Vs National Insurance Company Ltd
Top 2019 judgements by Supreme Court
Criminal Appeal No. Of 2019
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6422 of 2018)
Facts of the Case
The wife who is the petitioner, in this case, named Megha filed a petition against her husband (respondent) named Rajat, regarding domestic violence after her marriage. The case was filed under Section 12 of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. For the same, the Trial Court awarded her an interim maintenance of Rs. 5000 per month. However, the wife was not satisfied with the awarded amount and therefore challenged the decision of trial court in the sessions court. The sessions court after hearing both the sides increased the amount of interim maintenance to Rs 9000. Even after the amount was increased to Rs 9000 by the sessions court, the wife was not satisfied and therefore, she then challenged the order in the High Court. During the proceeding in the High Court, the counsel of the petitioner made a wrong statement or submission, regarding the income tax return of the husband. He stated that the income tax return of the husband for a certain number of years were not taken into consideration. However, the High Court found this submissions wrong as the income tax returns were filed properly. Furthermore, the high court found that, the wife who was the petitioner in this case, was well educated as she had degree in M.Sc. Biotech and meanwhile was preparing for her PhD. With these, the High Court also observed that all the other courts were of opinion that without any evidence being led in the matter, income could not be ascertained or assumed but however for meeting day to day expenses interim maintenance was granted. High Court then dismissed the petition of the wife.
The wife was again dissatisfied with the judgment given by the High Court and therefore then approached the Supreme Court, seeking an enhancement in the interim maintenance amount.
Issues of the Case
Judgement
The Supreme Court in its judgment held that, “After hearing both the parties, and looking at all the rival documents submitted by both the parties, and placed before us, the court has reached to the decision that it is appropriate to enhance the interim amount to Rs. 25000 (Twenty-five thousand) per month to be paid by the respondent to the petitioner with effect from 01.05.2019 until any further proceeding take place. Further proceedings regarding the case are yet to be conducted before the concerned court. The court had directed the respondent to pay the interim maintenance amount on regular basis on or before, 10th of every English calendar month. The court also observed that the amount of interim maintenance depends on the factual situations and on the income of the individual. When the husband is in a position where he can provide maintenance to his wife, then the husband in such situations is bound to provide it. Even in this case, though the wife was well educated, but there are no evidences that provides, that she was earning well to maintain her and therefore, the court asked the respondent to pay the enhanced interim maintenance amount to the petitioner.
The Supreme Court further ensured early and speedy disposal of case by quoting “The Trial Court shall endeavour to decide all the cases pending between the parties being FIR No. 255 of 2016, Case No. 208 of 2016, Complaint Case No. 103 of 2016 and Divorce Petition originally filed in Case No. 30 of 2016, preferably within six months from today. The parties have undertaken before this Court to extend full co-operation to the trial Court for early disposal of the concerned case".
Comment
Share