Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 30 (0.36 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Tayabbhai M. Bagasarwalla & Another vs Hind Rubber Industries Private Limited ... on 19 February, 1997
The issue is no more res integra and stands settled by a
catena of decisions of this Court. For setting aside such an order, even
if void, the party has to approach the appropriate forum. (Vide: State
of Kerala v. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth,
Naduvil (dead) & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 906; and Tayabbhai M.
1
Bagasarwalla & Anr. v. Hind Rubber Industries Pvt. Ltd., AIR
1997 SC 1240).
Sultan Sadik vs Sanjay Raj Subba And Ors on 5 January, 2004
In Sultan Sadik v. Sanjay Raj Subba & Ors., AIR 2004 SC
1377, this Court held that there cannot be any doubt that even if an
order is void or voidable, the same requires to be set aside by the
competent court.
M. Meenakshi & Ors vs Metadin Agarwal (D) By Lrs. & Ors on 29 August, 2006
In M. Meenakshi & Ors. v. Metadin Agarwal (dead) by Lrs. &
Ors., (2006) 7 SCC 470, this Court considered the issue at length and
observed that if the party feels that the order passed by the court or a
statutory authority is non-est/void, he should question the validity of
the said order before the appropriate forum resorting to the appropriate
proceedings. The Court observed as under:-
Jagraj Singh vs Birpal Kaur on 13 February, 2007
In Jagraj Singh v. Birpal Kaur, AIR 2007 SC 2083, this Court
held that conjugal rights are not merely creature of statute but inherent
in the very institution of marriage. Hence, the approach of a court of
law in matrimonial matters should be "much more constructive,
affirmative and productive rather than abstract, theoretical or
doctrinaire". The court should not give up the effort of reconciliation
merely on the ground that there is no chance for reconciliation or one
party or the other says that there is no possibility of living together.
Smt. Sureshta Devi vs Om Prakash on 7 February, 1991
In Smt. Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash, AIR 1992 SC 1304, this
Court held that mere filing the petition for divorce by mutual consent
does not authorise the court to make a decree for divorce. The
interregnum waiting period from 6 to 18 months is obviously intended
to give time and opportunity to the parties to reflect on their move and
seek advice from relations and friends. In this transitional period one
of the parties may have a second thought and change the mind not to
proceed with the petition. The court must be satisfied about the bona
1
fides and the consent of the parties for the reason that court gets
jurisdiction to make a decree for divorce only on mutual consent at the
time of enquiry. The consent must continue to decree nisi and must be
valid subsisting consent when the case is heard. Thus, withdrawal of
consent can be unilateral prior to second motion. The Court further
observed:
Hitesh Bhatnagar vs Deepa Bhatnagar on 18 April, 2011
Hitesh Bhatnagar v. Deepa Bhatnagar, AIR 2011 SC 1637).
D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal on 21 October, 2010
In D. Velusamy v. D. Patchaiammal, (2010) 10 SCC 469, this
Court considered the expression "domestic relationship" under Section
2(f) of the Act 2005 placing reliance on earlier judgment in Savitaben
Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 636
and held that relationship "in the nature of marriage" is akin to a
common law marriage. However, the couple must hold themselves out
to society as being akin to spouses in addition to fulfilling all other
requisite conditions for a valid marriage.
Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs State Of Gujarat And Ors on 10 March, 2005
The said judgments are distinguishable on facts as those
cases relate to live-in relationship without marriage. In the instant case,
the parties got married and the decree of Civil Court for divorce still
subsists. More so, a suit to declare the said judgment and decree as a
nullity is still pending consideration before the competent court.