Supreme Court of India Headnotes

MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF PARENTS AND SENIOR CITIZENS ACT, 2007 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 - Delhi Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens, Rules, 2009 -    Scope is to grant protection to the parents, including with respect to their property, it is not to punish the children and therefore, once it is established that the children have no right over the property of the parents, the fact that the parents do not wish to have their children staying with them is enough for invoking the Act and the Rules  - A senior citizen is merely to show that his property needs protection and need not necessarily have to show that he/she needs maintenance or has been ill-treated by the son or other legal heir -  Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) - Order VII Rule 11. #2020  PLRIJ e@journal 76 (Del.) Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (56 of 2007) Section 2(5), 17(1) – Residence belongi...

For revocation of irrevocable Power of Attorney, the principal is required to issue a public notice through local newspapers, without which, the revocation shall stand void. However, in the following cases a principal cannot revoke a Power of Attorney: Where the Power of Attorney holder, i.e. the agent himself has an interest in the subject matter of the Power of Attorney. For revocation of the Power of Attorney falling under this category, consent of the Power of Attorney holder is mandatory. Where the agent has partly exercised the act for which Power of Attorney was granted, he cannot be stripped with the right for the act which he already exercised۔ Section 202 of the Indian Contract Act and Revocation of Power of Attorney

SCI: 1.04.2020 :Sec 30 Evidence Act: r/w Sec 15 TADA If for any reason, a joint trial of co-accused  is not held, the confession of a co-accused cannot be held to be admissible in evidence against another accused who would face trial at a later point of time in the same case -

SCI: Feb:2020 HUF - Burden is on the person who alleges that the property is a joint property of an HUF to prove the same -  To prove this, they will have to not only show *jointness of the property* but *also jointness of family* and *jointness of living together* –  Not only jointness of the family has to be proved but burden lies upon the person alleging existence of a joint family to prove that the property belongs to the joint Hindu family unless there is material on record to show that the property is the nucleus of the joint Hindu family or that it was purchased through funds coming out of this nucleus -  Merely because the business is joint would not raise the presumption that there is a Joint Hindu Family. _Senior Lawyers Fraternity_ SCEJ 469: 2020

SCI 2020 Powers of magistrate  - "2. *This Court has held in Sakiri Vasu v. State of U.P., that if a person has a grievance that his FIR has not been registered by the police, or having been registered, proper investigation is not being done, then the remedy of the aggrieved person is not to go to the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but to approach the Magistrate concerned under Section 156(3) CrPC.*  If such an application under Section 156(3) CrPC is made and the Magistrate is, prima facie, satisfied, he can direct the FIR to be registered, *or if it has already been registered, he can direct proper investigation to be done*  which includes in his discretion, if he deems it necessary, *recommending change of the investigating officer* , so that a proper investigation is done in the matter.    We have said this in Sakiri Vasu case because what we have found in this country is that the High Courts have been flooded with writ petitions ...

The Supreme Court observed that false explanation or non-explanation of the accused to the questions posed by the court under Section 313 CrPC(power to examine accused)of the Code cannot be used as link in chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused۔ It can be used as additional circumstances when the prosecution has proved that chain of circumstances has lead to the only hypothesis that accused has commited the crime۔ Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai of SCI observed

Shiv Kumar Chadha versusMunicipal Corporation of Delhi 1993 SCI on Courts passing ad-interim ex-parte Orders under Order 39 CPC without recording reasons in their Orders Courts have been passing orders of injunction before issuance of notices or hearing the parties against whom such orders are to operate without recording the reasons for passing such orders.  It is said that if the reasons for grant of injunction are mentioned, a grievance can be made by the other side that Court has prejudged the issues involved in the suit.    According to us, this is a misconception about the nature and the scope of interim orders.    It need not be pointed out that any opinion expressed in connection with an interlocutory application has no bearing and shall not affect any party, at the stage of the final adjudication. SCI