Bombay Hight Court – getting Tech Savvy ?


Writ Board Department,

 

Original Side, High Court,

 

Indian-flag-flying

 

 

Bombay

 

N O T I C E

 

All the Advocates and Parties appearing in-person are hereby informed that

 

Scanning Work of all the Suits, Appeals, Writ Petitions and Interlocutory Applications,

 

both on Original Side and Appellate Side which have been filed and also of all the new

 

matters which are being filed currently, is in progress and for that purpose Title and

 

Prayers of such matters are required to be entered into the system software.

 

Therefore, all the Advocates and Parties appearing in-person shall, henceforth

 

submit a Pen-Drive containing the title and prayers of such matters and Interlocutory

 

Applications at the time of lodging itself.

 

 

Please note that without Pen Drive no such matters and

 

Interlocutory Applications will be accepted for lodging. This practise

 

must be adhered to strictly in order to avoid inconvenience and

 

delays in numbering the matters .

 

Dated this 26th day of February, 2013

 

Sd/- Sd/-

 

 (Mangesh S. Patil)                                                                            (D.V.Sawant)

 

 Registrar (Judl-I) Registrar/Prothonotary & Sr. Master,

 

 High Court, A.S., Bombay High Court, O.S., Bombay

 

No waiting in mutual consent divorce- #goodnews



Rosy Sequeira, TNN | Sep 26, 2012,

MUMBAI: The Bombay high court on Tuesday waived the mandatory six-month waiting period for couples, who, during the pendency of their appeal against the family court order, decide to end their marriage through mutual consent. Appeals against family court orders are heard by the high court. The latter can now instantaneously grant divorce.

In 2008, the Bombay HC had ruled that the family court cannot waive the six-month period before granting divorce. Today’s judgment distinguished the earlier verdict and held that in an appeal, the high court could waive the six-month period.

“It will end the mutual misery rather than let it continue,” said Justice V M Kanade, who along with Justice P D Kode, gave their verdict on a man’s appeal against dismissal of his divorce plea by the family court.

During pendency of the appeal, the couple filed consent terms, praying for a decree of divorce by mutual consent. The only hitch was the mandatory waiting period of six months under Section 13 B of the Hindu Marriage Act.

Advocate Vikramaditya Deshmukh, who was asked to assist the court as amicus curiae, submitted that various high courts have taken a view that when an application is filed before an appellate court, seeking its permission to convert an appeal into a petition for divorce by mutual consent, it is not necessary to wait for further six months. He said the waiting period is applicable only for the family court.

Upholding Deshmukh’s submission, the judges in their order said, “We are of the view that it is not necessary for the appellate court to wait for further six months after an application is made seeking conversion of petition for divorce into divorce by mutual consent.”

Accepting the couple’s consent terms, the judges directed that their marriage is dissolved by mutual consent.

The couple married on July 1, 2006, and have two children aged ten and eight years. Since October 2006, they did not cohabit although they were living in the same house. On May 11, 2010, the wife left the matrimonial home. The husband moved the family court in January 2011, seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty. The court dismissed his petition in June 2012. He filed appeal in HC in July 2012. During its pendency, the couple filed consent terms, urging the court to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent. They signed consent terms on September 12, 2012.

PUCL statement on the Supreme Court granting bail to Dr Khaleel Chishty


Given below is the statement of the PEOPLE’S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES on the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday to grant bail to Dr Khaleel Chishty. Given below the statement is the full text of the court order

The PUCL is extremely relieved that the SC decided to set free from the Prison 80 year old Dr. Khalil Chishty serving a life sentence in Ajmer Central Jail for a murder case. This is an extremely significant step but not sufficient as bail for Dr. Chishty as seen earlier when the trial was underway for 19 years, was like house arrest. he had to report regularly to the police and could not step out of his house and area. We hope that the next step of sending Dr. Chishty back home happens soon as it would be better for all that we send him back alive, when he can be with those who care for him and love. The PUCL appreciates the wisdom of the Supreme Court for this judgement.
While Judicial remedy would be pursued in the Supreme Court, we would like to remind all that the executive remedy as provided in the Indian Constitution of President and the Governot of a State granting Mercy to an individual at any stage of the judicial process, was stalled by the Governor of Rajasthan, who despite being recommended twice by the Chief Minister of Rajasthan that Dr. Chishty be pardoned, the Governor only let the file gather dust.
We take this opportunity in the interest of justice as well as strengthening further the relationships between the two countries and urge the Governor Sh. Shivraj Patil to sign the Mercy PEtition
Similarly the PUCL is committed to ensure the release of Sarabjeet who has been put on a death row and behind bars since 22 years in an alleged terror case. We urge the President of Pakistan to pardon him, commuting the death sentence to life and granting him safe passage home to India.
We are,
Prem Krishna Sharma (President)
Kavita Srivastava (General Secretary)
Radha Kant Saxena (Vice President)
D L Tripathi (Vice President)
Nishat Hussein (Vice President)
Anant Bhatnagar (Ajmer Secretary)

ITEM NO.65 COURT NO.5 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).1493/2012

(From the judgement and order(s) in CRA No. 189/2011 dated 20-DEC-11

of The HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)

MOHAMMAD KHALIL CHISTI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for bail,permission to file additional documents and office report)

WITH SLP(Crl) NO. 2301 of 2012

(With appln. for bail and office report)

Date: 09/04/2012 These petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE P. SATHASIVAM

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR

For Petitioner(s) Mr. U.U.. Lalit,Sr.Adv.

In SR 1493/12 Mr. Nitin Sangra,Adv.

Mr. Gaurav Agrawal,Adv.

In SR 2301/12 Mr. Ravindra S. Garia,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Rahul Verma,Adv.

Ms. Pragati Neekhra,Adv.

In SR 2301/12 Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik,AAG

Ms. Manju Jana,Adv.

Mr. Irshad Ahmed,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

In SLP(Crl.)No.1493 of 2012

Heard both sides.

Permission to file additional documents is granted.

Leave granted.

With regard to the application for bail, Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has stated that the appellant is 80 years old as on date and resident of Karachi. He further stated that he is in Ajmer for the last 20 years. It is also pointed out by the senior counsel for the appellant that the main witnesses viz. PW-4 and PW-5 did not attribute any specific over act to the appellant and according to him it is a case of free fight. By pointing out all these details, he prayed that he may be enlarged on bail.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan submitted that the Courts below had relied upon evidence of PW-3 and in addition to the same, he being a Pakistani national, it is not desirable to release him on bail at his juncture.

We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the relevant materials.

Taking note of his present age and also considering the fact that he was in Ajmer for the last 20 years and the evidence of PW-4 and PW-5 and without expressing anything on the merits of the case, we are satisfied that the appellant has made out a case for enlarging him on bail. Accordingly, the appellant is ordered to be released on bail in Sessions Case No. 157 of 2001 to the satisfaction of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No.1, Ajmer.

The Additional Sessions Judge is free to impose appropriate condition including surrendering of passport if he has not surrendered earlier.

Learned senior counsel for the appellant has also prayed for a specific permission to visit his country and also to reside at Delhi till the disposal of the appeal. In the absence of the separate petition giving adequate reasons, we are not inclined to grant such permission. However, appellant is free to file such application/(s) giving adequate reasons.

Crl.M.P. for bail is disposed of.

In SLP(Crl.)No.2301 of 2012

Leave granted.

List the Crl.M.P. for bail after two weeks.

[Madhu Bala] [Savita Sainani]

Sr.PA Court Master

ITEM NO.27 COURT NO.5 SECTION II

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).2301/2012

(From the judgement and order dated 20/12/2011 in CRA No.188/2011,

of The HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR)

Archives

Kractivism-Gonaimate Videos

Protest to Arrest

Faking Democracy- Free Irom Sharmila Now

Faking Democracy- Repression Anti- Nuke activists

JAPA- MUSICAL ACTIVISM

Kamayaninumerouno – Youtube Channel

UID-UNIQUE ?

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 6,228 other followers

Top Rated

Blog Stats

  • 1,843,715 hits

Archives

June 2021
M T W T F S S
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  
%d bloggers like this: