Contempt of court – by Adocate = not entitled to practice in the court ? = “Sri Rakesh Tripathi, Advocate, on 21st December, 2012 during lunch hour without taking permission from C.J.M., Allahabad entered into his chamber along with 2-3 colleagues and at the said point of time he started hurling filthy abuses to the CJM and the matter did not end there, as he also raised his hand to beat the Chief Judicial Magistrate and also threatened him of dire consequences. The contemnor also asked the C.J.M. as to why he has not passed an order for lodging F.I.R. when he had asked for the same. This act on the part of the contemnor constitutes criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as this act has not only lowered the authority of the Court but also scandalised the Court and the same has also the tendency of interference with the due course of administration of justice.” -When the rules stipulate that a person who committed contempt of court cannot have the unreserved right to continue to appear and plead and conduct cases in the courts without any qualm or remorse, the Bar Council cannot overrule such a regulation concerning the orderly conduct of court proceedings. Courts of law are structured in such a design as to evoke respect and reverence for the majesty of law and justice. The machinery for dispensation of justice according to law is operated by the court. Proceedings inside the courts are always expected to be held in a dignified and orderly manner. The very sight of an advocate, who was found guilty of contempt of court on the previous hour, standing in the court and arguing a case or crossexamining a witness on the same day, unaffected by the contemptuous behavior he hurled at the court, would erode the dignity of the court and even corrode the majesty of it besides impairing the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the institution of the courts. This necessitates vesting of power with the High Court to formulate rules for regulating the proceeding inside the court including the conduct of advocates during such proceedings. That power should not be confused with the right to practice law. While the Bar Council can exercise control over the latter the High Court should be in control of the former. – where an advocate is shown to have accepted money in the name of a judge or on the pretext of influencing him; or where an advocate is found tampering with the court’s record; or where an advocate is found actively taking part in faking court orders (fake bail orders are not unknown in several High Courts!); or where an advocate has made it into a practice to browbeat and abuse judges and on that basis has earned the reputation to get a case transferred from an “inconvenient” court; or where an advocate is found to be in the habit of sending unfounded and unsubstantiated allegation petitions against judicial officers and judges to the superior courts. =sentence in the following manner : 1. The sentence of imprisonemnt of 6 months shall remain suspended for further period of 3 years subject to his maintaining good and proper conduct with a condition that he shall not enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a further period of three years in addition to what he has undergone already. The period shall commence from 1.7.2019 to 30.6.2022. In case of non violation of aforesaid condition the sentence after three years shall be remitted 2.However, sentence of imprisonment may be activated by this Court in case it is found that there is breach of any condition made by the concerned advocate during the period of three years. 3. He shall deposit fine of Rs.2000 as imposed by the High Court. In case of failure to deposit fine he shall not enter the premises of District Judgeship for a period of three months

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1223 OF 2015 RAKESH TIWARI, ADVOCATE … APPELLANT VERSUS ALOK PANDEY, C.J.M. … RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T ARUN MISHRA, J. The appellant, advocate, has been convicted for his undesirable conduct by the High Court vide impugned judgment… Read More Contempt of court – by Adocate = not entitled to practice in the court ? = “Sri Rakesh Tripathi, Advocate, on 21st December, 2012 during lunch hour without taking permission from C.J.M., Allahabad entered into his chamber along with 2-3 colleagues and at the said point of time he started hurling filthy abuses to the CJM and the matter did not end there, as he also raised his hand to beat the Chief Judicial Magistrate and also threatened him of dire consequences. The contemnor also asked the C.J.M. as to why he has not passed an order for lodging F.I.R. when he had asked for the same. This act on the part of the contemnor constitutes criminal contempt within the meaning of Section 2(c) of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, as this act has not only lowered the authority of the Court but also scandalised the Court and the same has also the tendency of interference with the due course of administration of justice.” -When the rules stipulate that a person who committed contempt of court cannot have the unreserved right to continue to appear and plead and conduct cases in the courts without any qualm or remorse, the Bar Council cannot overrule such a regulation concerning the orderly conduct of court proceedings. Courts of law are structured in such a design as to evoke respect and reverence for the majesty of law and justice. The machinery for dispensation of justice according to law is operated by the court. Proceedings inside the courts are always expected to be held in a dignified and orderly manner. The very sight of an advocate, who was found guilty of contempt of court on the previous hour, standing in the court and arguing a case or crossexamining a witness on the same day, unaffected by the contemptuous behavior he hurled at the court, would erode the dignity of the court and even corrode the majesty of it besides impairing the confidence of the public in the efficacy of the institution of the courts. This necessitates vesting of power with the High Court to formulate rules for regulating the proceeding inside the court including the conduct of advocates during such proceedings. That power should not be confused with the right to practice law. While the Bar Council can exercise control over the latter the High Court should be in control of the former. – where an advocate is shown to have accepted money in the name of a judge or on the pretext of influencing him; or where an advocate is found tampering with the court’s record; or where an advocate is found actively taking part in faking court orders (fake bail orders are not unknown in several High Courts!); or where an advocate has made it into a practice to browbeat and abuse judges and on that basis has earned the reputation to get a case transferred from an “inconvenient” court; or where an advocate is found to be in the habit of sending unfounded and unsubstantiated allegation petitions against judicial officers and judges to the superior courts. =sentence in the following manner : 1. The sentence of imprisonemnt of 6 months shall remain suspended for further period of 3 years subject to his maintaining good and proper conduct with a condition that he shall not enter the premises of the District Judgeship, Allahabad for a further period of three years in addition to what he has undergone already. The period shall commence from 1.7.2019 to 30.6.2022. In case of non violation of aforesaid condition the sentence after three years shall be remitted 2.However, sentence of imprisonment may be activated by this Court in case it is found that there is breach of any condition made by the concerned advocate during the period of three years. 3. He shall deposit fine of Rs.2000 as imposed by the High Court. In case of failure to deposit fine he shall not enter the premises of District Judgeship for a period of three months

The validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018 = we have come to the conclusion that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 is lacking in substance. Following the decision in B K Pavitra I, the State government duly carried out the exercise of collating and analysing data on the compelling factors adverted to by the Constitution Bench in Nagaraj. The Reservation Act 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by B K Pavitra I in respect of the Reservation Act 2002. The Reservation Act 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature. It is Nagaraj and Jarnail compliant. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling power conferred by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution. We therefore find no merit in the batch of writ petitions as the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 has been upheld. They shall stand dismissed. Accordingly, the review petitions and miscellaneous applications shall PART K 135 also stand dismissed in view of the judgment in the present case. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending applications are disposed of.

1 Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE/INHERENT/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION M A No. 1151 of 2018 In Civil Appeal No. 2368 of 2011 B K Pavitra and Ors …Appellants Versus The Union of India and Ors …Respondents With Review Petition (c) Diary No. 7833 of 2017 With Review Petition (c) Diary No.10240 of 2017… Read More The validity of the Karnataka Extension of Consequential Seniority to Government Servants Promoted on the Basis of Reservation (to the Posts in the Civil Services of the State) Act 2018 = we have come to the conclusion that the challenge to the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 is lacking in substance. Following the decision in B K Pavitra I, the State government duly carried out the exercise of collating and analysing data on the compelling factors adverted to by the Constitution Bench in Nagaraj. The Reservation Act 2018 has cured the deficiency which was noticed by B K Pavitra I in respect of the Reservation Act 2002. The Reservation Act 2018 does not amount to a usurpation of judicial power by the state legislature. It is Nagaraj and Jarnail compliant. The Reservation Act 2018 is a valid exercise of the enabling power conferred by Article 16 (4A) of the Constitution. We therefore find no merit in the batch of writ petitions as the constitutional validity of the Reservation Act 2018 has been upheld. They shall stand dismissed. Accordingly, the review petitions and miscellaneous applications shall PART K 135 also stand dismissed in view of the judgment in the present case. There shall be no order as to costs. All pending applications are disposed of.

Absence of bullet in the body as per the opinion by physical examinatoin of injury- can falsify the prosecution story=Apex court said No – The nature of injuries especially injury in the back of head led him to believe that bullet entered from back of the head and came out of the mouth. The above impression recorded 14 in the inquest report was only opinion of person preparing inquest report and due to the above impression recorded in the inquest report and no bullet having been found in the post mortem report, it cannot be concluded that incident did not happen in a manner as claimed by the prosecution. The mention of bullet injury was only an opinion of the officer writing the inquest report and in no manner belies the prosecution case as proved by eyewitnesses PW11 and PW13.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1617 of 2014 SHIO SHANKAR DUBEY & ORS. …APPELLANT(S) VERSUS STATE OF BIHAR …RESPONDENT(S) J U D G M E N T ASHOK BHUSHAN,J. This appeal has been filed by the three appellants challenging the judgment of High Court of Patna dated 16.07.2013,… Read More Absence of bullet in the body as per the opinion by physical examinatoin of injury- can falsify the prosecution story=Apex court said No – The nature of injuries especially injury in the back of head led him to believe that bullet entered from back of the head and came out of the mouth. The above impression recorded 14 in the inquest report was only opinion of person preparing inquest report and due to the above impression recorded in the inquest report and no bullet having been found in the post mortem report, it cannot be concluded that incident did not happen in a manner as claimed by the prosecution. The mention of bullet injury was only an opinion of the officer writing the inquest report and in no manner belies the prosecution case as proved by eyewitnesses PW11 and PW13.

second wife is a necessary party = Exparte divorce granted – after appeal time was over – contacted second marriage – first wife filed set aside petition with delay condonation – Apex court remand the case and asked to implead the second wife also to litigation = We, however, consider it apposite to mention that admittedly during pendency of the litigation, certain events have taken place which have bearing over the rights of the parties. 16. It is for this reason, we request the High Court to implead the appellant herein as a party in the miscellaneous appeal and persuade the parties to settle the issues, if possible, on some mutually acceptable terms to give quietus to this long pending matrimonial dispute, since it is not in the interest of any of the parties to these appeals to continue this litigation.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4847­4848 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) Nos.7529­7530 of 2015) Karuna Kansal ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Hemant Kansal & Anr. ….Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. Leave granted. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order… Read More second wife is a necessary party = Exparte divorce granted – after appeal time was over – contacted second marriage – first wife filed set aside petition with delay condonation – Apex court remand the case and asked to implead the second wife also to litigation = We, however, consider it apposite to mention that admittedly during pendency of the litigation, certain events have taken place which have bearing over the rights of the parties. 16. It is for this reason, we request the High Court to implead the appellant herein as a party in the miscellaneous appeal and persuade the parties to settle the issues, if possible, on some mutually acceptable terms to give quietus to this long pending matrimonial dispute, since it is not in the interest of any of the parties to these appeals to continue this litigation.

Family settlement operates as estopel = even without registration a written document of family settlement/family arrangement can be used as corroborative evidence as explaining the arrangement made thereunder and conduct of the parties. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, even the plaintiff has also categorically admitted that the oral partition had taken place on 23.04.1971 and he also 30 admitted that 3 to 4 punchayat people were also present. However, according to him, the same was not reduced in writing. Therefore, even accepting the case of plaintiff that there was an oral partition on 23.04.1971, the document Exhibit D4 dated 23.04.1971, to which he is also the signatory and all other family members are signatory, can be said to be a list of properties partitioned. Everybody got right/share as per the oral partition/partition. Therefore, the same even can be used as corroborative evidence as explaining the arrangement made thereunder and conduct of the parties.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 784 OF 2010 Thulasidhara & Another ..Appellants Versus Narayanappa & Others ..Respondents J U D G M E N T M.R. SHAH, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru… Read More Family settlement operates as estopel = even without registration a written document of family settlement/family arrangement can be used as corroborative evidence as explaining the arrangement made thereunder and conduct of the parties. In the present case, as observed hereinabove, even the plaintiff has also categorically admitted that the oral partition had taken place on 23.04.1971 and he also 30 admitted that 3 to 4 punchayat people were also present. However, according to him, the same was not reduced in writing. Therefore, even accepting the case of plaintiff that there was an oral partition on 23.04.1971, the document Exhibit D4 dated 23.04.1971, to which he is also the signatory and all other family members are signatory, can be said to be a list of properties partitioned. Everybody got right/share as per the oral partition/partition. Therefore, the same even can be used as corroborative evidence as explaining the arrangement made thereunder and conduct of the parties.

suit by Donor – alternate prayer made for a decree of declaration that the School was the owner in possession of the land which had been gifted to it, and that the mutation of exchange was illegal, unlawful, and liable to be set aside. =The purported oral exchange dated 01.08.1988, followed by the Agreement dated 25.08.1988, between Balwant Singh, the then Principal of the Doaba Public School, with Mohinder Singh ­ the President of the School, was a wholly collusive and illegal transaction. The exchange was illegal and unauthorized, since there was no Resolution passed by the Doaba Education Society which was running the school in favour of the President to exchange the land owned and vested in the School pursuant to the Gift Deed.=The purported exchange dated 01.08.1988 and 25.08.1988 being wholly illegal, is liable to be quashed and set aside. The Jamabandis reflecting the purported exchange are quashed and set aside. The Jamabandis be restored by the revenue authorities in the name of the Doaba Public School, Garhshankar, Village Parowal, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. The Appeals are allowed accordingly.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4629­4630 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.  4120­4121  of 2019) Randhir Kaur (Deceased) through her Lrs. …Appellant(s) Versus Balwinder Kaur & Ors.                        …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T INDU MALHOTRA, J. 1. Leave granted in both the Special Leave Petitions. 2. The   present   Appeals   have   been   filed   against   the   common judgment and order dated 25.05.2018 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in RSA Nos. 2879 and 4771 of 2015. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the Appellants have filed the present Appeals. 1 3. The background facts in which the present Appeals have been filed, briefly narrated are as follows: ­ 3.1 The   predecessor­in­title   of   the   suit   property   Smt. Randhir Kaur w/o Harnandan Singh vide a registered… Read More suit by Donor – alternate prayer made for a decree of declaration that the School was the owner in possession of the land which had been gifted to it, and that the mutation of exchange was illegal, unlawful, and liable to be set aside. =The purported oral exchange dated 01.08.1988, followed by the Agreement dated 25.08.1988, between Balwant Singh, the then Principal of the Doaba Public School, with Mohinder Singh ­ the President of the School, was a wholly collusive and illegal transaction. The exchange was illegal and unauthorized, since there was no Resolution passed by the Doaba Education Society which was running the school in favour of the President to exchange the land owned and vested in the School pursuant to the Gift Deed.=The purported exchange dated 01.08.1988 and 25.08.1988 being wholly illegal, is liable to be quashed and set aside. The Jamabandis reflecting the purported exchange are quashed and set aside. The Jamabandis be restored by the revenue authorities in the name of the Doaba Public School, Garhshankar, Village Parowal, District Hoshiarpur, Punjab. The Appeals are allowed accordingly.

Service matter – we hold that the Judgment of the Division Bench is liable to be set aside since the contesting Respondents did not have a vested or fructified right of promotion to OAS Class II posts which had arisen during the recruitment year 2008. The names of the contesting Respondents were merely recommended for consideration. In the meanwhile, in 2009 the State had re­structured the cadre, and abolished the OAS Class II cadre. The re­constituted cadre viz. the Orissa Revenue Service Group ‘B’ cadre came in its place. Hence, the direction of the Division Bench to appoint the contesting Respondents in the vacancies which had occurred in the abolished cadre, in accordance with the repealed 1978 Rules, was contrary to law, and liable to be set aside.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4646 OF 2019 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4976 of 2019] State of Orissa & Anr. …Appellants Versus Dhirendra Sundar Das & Ors. …Respondents WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.4647 OF 2019 [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 4977… Read More Service matter – we hold that the Judgment of the Division Bench is liable to be set aside since the contesting Respondents did not have a vested or fructified right of promotion to OAS Class II posts which had arisen during the recruitment year 2008. The names of the contesting Respondents were merely recommended for consideration. In the meanwhile, in 2009 the State had re­structured the cadre, and abolished the OAS Class II cadre. The re­constituted cadre viz. the Orissa Revenue Service Group ‘B’ cadre came in its place. Hence, the direction of the Division Bench to appoint the contesting Respondents in the vacancies which had occurred in the abolished cadre, in accordance with the repealed 1978 Rules, was contrary to law, and liable to be set aside.