Adv Legal Help

#Nipah

🗓️ Twenty Vacation Benches were constituted to hear urgent matters over the Supreme Court's seven-week summer break. What do the numbers say? 📉 Like every year, due to the vacations, the month of June saw the lowest number of cases instituted and disposed in the Court this year. 🏛️ 2643 cases were instituted in June and Vacation Benches disposed of 613 cases. Read more about it here: https://bit.ly/3S8VL5Y 📈 In June, pendency increased by 2000 cases. Even as it is normal for the pendency figure to rise during the vacation, the Court has its task cut-out in the coming months. Read more here: https://bit.ly/3zLTjMM Adv legal help Legal correspondent. Adv R.Balaji Naik

#Handcuffs

.### Events Timelines and Decision Case Title: Akshay Khandve vs. State of Maharashtra (Criminal Revision Application 376 of 2019) Timeline: 1. April 20, 2013: Akshay Khandve, aged 18, drove his newly purchased motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner, causing severe injuries to a woman who later succumbed to her injuries. 2. Post-Incident: Khandve was arrested and tried in a Magistrate Court. 3. Magistrate Court Decision: Khandve was found guilty of various offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 4. Sessions Court Appeal: Khandve's conviction was upheld by the Sessions Court upon appeal. 5. Revision Petition: Khandve filed a revision plea before Justice Sanjay Mehare of the Bombay High Court, seeking to quash the conviction. 6. July 15, 2024: The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction but ordered Khandve's release under the Probation of Offenders Act, citing his young age and potential for a bright future. ### Brief Facts Akshay Khandve, an 18-year-old, drove his newly bought motorcycle in a rash manner on April 20, 2013. He hit a woman sitting outside her house, causing her severe injuries that led to her death. Khandve was subsequently tried and convicted in the Magistrate Court, with the conviction upheld by the Sessions Court. ### Deep Analysis The case revolves around the application of the Probation of Offenders Act in light of the convict's young age and lack of criminal intent. Justice Sanjay Mehare's decision underscores the importance of considering the convict's future prospects and the circumstances surrounding the incident. ### Sections Involved 1. Section 304-A IPC: Causing death by negligence. 2. Section 4, Probation of Offenders Act: Allows the court to release offenders on probation instead of sentencing them to imprisonment. ### Both Sides' Arguments Prosecution: - Argued that Khandve's rash and negligent driving led to the death of the woman. - Emphasized the severity of the offense and the need for upholding the conviction. Defense: - Contended that Khandve, being a first-time offender and a teenager at the time of the incident, did not have criminal intent (mens rea). - Highlighted Khandve's potential for a bright future and the negative impact a conviction would have on his life. ### Judicial Observations Justice Sanjay Mehare observed: - The convict's young age and the context of the incident—driving a new motorcycle for the first time in excitement. - The absence of criminal intent and Khandve's clean record. - The potential stigma and future implications of the conviction on Khandve's life. ### Conclusion The Bombay High Court upheld the conviction of Akshay Khandve under Section 304-A IPC but ordered his release under the Probation of Offenders Act. The court highlighted the need to consider the offender's future prospects and the circumstances of the case, ultimately deciding that probation was a more appropriate response than imprisonment.

akshay-khandve-vs-state-of-maharashtra-549908.pdf

maharaj-singh-v-karan-singh-dead-thr-lrswatermark-1637081.pdf

S. 19(B) SRA| తరువాత కొనుగోలుదారులను ఒరిజినల్ విక్రేతతో కలిసి విక్రయ పత్రాన్ని అమలు చేయమని ఆదేశించవచ్చు; తరువాతి విక్రయ పత్రాలను రద్దు చేయమని ప్రార్థించాల్సిన అవసరం లేదు: సుప్రీం కోర్టు Source ### Case Brief: Maharaj Singh v. Karan Singh (Dead) Through LRs, 2024 INSC 491 Facts: - Maharaj Singh entered into a contract with Karan Singh to purchase immovable property. - Karan Singh subsequently sold the same property to another party. - Maharaj Singh filed a suit for specific performance of the original contract. Key Points: - Issue: Whether specific performance can be enforced against subsequent purchasers without canceling their sale deeds. - Supreme Court Ruling: Subsequent purchasers with notice of the original contract must execute the sale deed along with the original vendor. - Section Involved: Section 19(B) of the Specific Relief Act (SRA). - Arguments: - Plaintiff: Enforce the original contract without canceling subsequent sale deeds. - Defendants: Subsequent sale should stand; cancellation needed for enforcement. - Judicial Observation: Specific performance can be enforced against subsequent purchasers with notice without canceling their sale deeds. - Conclusion: Simplifies legal proceedings, protects original contractual rights. For more details, refer to the full judgment here.

### Case Title: Maharaj Singh v. Karan Singh (Dead) Through LRs, 2024 INSC 491 Brief Facts: - Parties Involved: Maharaj Singh (Plaintiff) and Karan Singh (Defendant, now deceased, represented by legal representatives). - Contractual Agreement: Maharaj Singh entered into a contract with Karan Singh for the purchase of immovable property. - Subsequent Sale: Karan Singh sold the same property to another party while the original contract with Maharaj Singh was still in force. - Legal Action: Maharaj Singh filed a suit for specific performance of the contract, seeking enforcement against Karan Singh and the subsequent purchasers. Events Timeline: 1. Contract Date: Initial agreement between Maharaj Singh and Karan Singh. 2. Subsequent Sale: Karan Singh sells the property to a third party. 3. Filing of Suit: Maharaj Singh files a suit for specific performance. 4. Lower Court Decisions: Decisions in lower courts lead to the appeal to the Supreme Court. 5. Supreme Court Hearing: Detailed arguments from both sides are heard. 6. Judgment Date: Supreme Court delivers the final judgment. Sections Involved: - Section 19(B) of the Specific Relief Act (SRA): This section deals with the enforcement of contracts against subsequent purchasers who have notice of the original contract. Arguments from Both Sides: - Plaintiff (Maharaj Singh): - Argued for specific performance of the original contract. - Claimed the subsequent purchasers had notice of the existing contract and thus should be bound by it. - Asserted that cancellation of subsequent sale deeds is not necessary for enforcing specific performance. - Defendant (Karan Singh's LRs and Subsequent Purchasers): - Contended that the subsequent sale was valid and should not be disturbed. - Argued that without cancellation of the subsequent sale deeds, specific performance cannot be enforced. - Claimed that they were bona fide purchasers without notice of the original contract. Judicial Observations: - The Supreme Court noted the principle that specific performance is an equitable remedy meant to enforce valid contractual obligations. - It emphasized the importance of notice, stating that subsequent purchasers with notice of the original contract cannot claim protection against specific performance. - The Court observed that requiring cancellation of subsequent sale deeds would unnecessarily complicate the enforcement of original contracts and is not mandated under Section 19(B) of the SRA. Decision: - The Supreme Court directed the subsequent purchasers to join the original vendor in executing the sale deed in favor of Maharaj Singh. - It ruled that Maharaj Singh did not need to seek the cancellation of subsequent sale deeds, thus simplifying and expediting the legal process. Conclusion: The Supreme Court's ruling reinforces the enforceability of contracts under Section 19(B) of the Specific Relief Act against subsequent purchasers who have notice of the original contract. This decision underscores the importance of protecting contractual rights and ensures that equitable remedies are efficiently administered without unnecessary procedural hurdles. For a detailed judgment, you can refer to the full text here.

పదకోశం - మీ కోసం.pdf

న్యాయవాద మిత్రులకు విజ్ఞప్తి, 16వ తేదీ మంగళవారం మధ్యాహ్నం 1.00 గంటకు బార్ అసోసియేషన్ భవనంలో, జనరల్ బాడీ సమావేశం ఏర్పాటు చేయడమైనది. ముఖ్యంగా జూనియర్ మరియు సీనియర్ న్యాయవాదులు సర్టిఫికెట్ ఆఫ్ ప్రాక్టీస్ (C.O.P.), రెన్యువల్ చేసుకునే విషయంలో తలెత్తిన సమస్యలను గురించి చర్చించడానికి ఈ సమావేశాన్ని ఏర్పాటు చేయడం అయినది. కావున ప్రతి ఒక్క న్యాయవాది హాజరుకావాలని కోరుతున్నాము. ఇట్లు, పి. గురు ప్రసాద్, ప్రెసిడెంట్, బార్ అసోసియేషన్, అనంతపురం.