Vivek's legal notes

Supreme Court of India Sunil Gupta And Ors vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Ors on 2 May, 1990  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1745823/ Prem Shankar Shukla v. Delhi Administration , [1980] 3 SCC 526; Bhim Singh, M.L.A.v. State of Jammu & Kashmir & Ors [1985] 4 S.C.C. 677; Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [1978] 1 SCC 248; Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration , [1978] 4 SCC 494 and Sunil Batra (II) v. Delhi Administration, [1980] 3 SCC 488 2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/853252/ Supreme Court of India Prem Shankar Shukla vs Delhi Administration on 29 April, 1980 Equivalent citations: 1980 AIR 1535, 1980 SCR (3) 855 3.  Supreme Court of India M.P. Dwivedi And Others vs Unknown on 11 January, 1996 Equivalent citations: AIR 1996 SC 2299, 1996 (1) ALD Cri 789, (1997) 1 GLR 39, (1996) 4 SCC 152, 1996 1 SCR 347 Contempt against the judge  B.K. Nigam " It appears that the contemner was completely insensitive about the serious violations of the human rights of t...

 Please see sample filled bail bond form for Delhi at this link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JHPyzk401C7PI-IQIFOjSQXFKzx5U4OI/view?usp=sharing   This sample form is filled by Mohan to apply for his bail.  " Mohan is the husband of Kamini. His brother Sohan stands as surety for him. Documents to be attached to this form are: 1. Surety identity (aadhar etc) 2. Surety Photo 3. Surety document (FD receipt in original, RC of vehicle etc) " You can buy this form from the stationary shop. It is better to fill this form beforehand, carry your surety and all documents along with you and tell judge to initiate bail process. For bail amount, you can check with the court staff beforehand on general surety amount. It should be 10-15K.  1. Remember, if you are not arrested during investigation, you're entitled to bail as per  Court On Its Own Motion vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 28 January, 2004 Equivalent citations: 109 (2003) DLT 494 https://indiankanoon.org/do...

  1) For Family Courts To, The PIO, Hon'ble Delhi High Court At New Delhi, SUBJECT - Application under section 6(1) and 6(3) of RTI Act 2005   Respected Sir, Following information is requested in reference to Delhi Family Court Rules 1996 (a copy of rules is also available at: https://districts.ecourts.gov.in/sites/default/files/FamilyCourtsRules.pdf for your quick reference) 1. Please provide the list of counsellors attached to each family court in Delhi as per Rule 9 of the mentioned rules. 2. From the list of counsellors in reply to point no. 1, kindly provide the list of counsellors who are also "child counsellors" (i.e. who are qualified to interact and identify issues with children across various age groups, including infants, toddlers, adolescents, and teenagers.) 3. Kindly provide the list of any other child counsellors (along with the court name) who may not be included in the reply to point no. 2 but officially assist the Family courts as child counsellors. 4. ...

 https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/02/17/cognizance-of-criminal-contempt-by-single-judge-of-a-high-court-under-the-contempt-of-courts-act-1971-in-absence-of-any-rules-framed-by-the-high-court-permissibility/ Some of the High Courts including the Delhi High Court have not framed any rules under Section 23 of the Act10 laying down the procedure for taking notice, cognizance, hearing, and determination of the criminal contempt proceedings. In light of Section 18 of the Act, the High Courts in India have taken divergent views on whether a Single Judge of the High Court is barred from taking cognizance of criminal contempt under Section 15 of the Act or not. https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2023/02/17/cognizance-of-criminal-contempt-by-single-judge-of-a-high-court-under-the-contempt-of-courts-act-1971-in-absence-of-any-rules-framed-by-the-high-court-permissibility/   https://indiankanoon.org/doc/193567322/  (Delhi high court finally) Landmark decision on backing out ...

You can't appeal interlocutory order passed by family court u/s 19 of family courts act. Family court  act overrides 115 revision under cpc and 397(2) under crpc. 397(2) anyway bars revision of interim orders. Chattisgarh High Court Anil Mishra vs Sakshi Mishra on 22 February, 2017  https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39811957/ suggests using Art 226 and 227 of constitution against interim orders of family court. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/75106629/

 https://www.casemine.com/search/in/transfer%2Bpetition%2B406%2Bcrpc https://www.aaptaxlaw.com/Legal-Formats/transfer-petition-under-section-406-of-crpc-format-to-file-in-supreme-court-of-india.html This is the precedent of Transfer Petitioner (Criminal) before the Supreme Court of India for transfer of a Criminal Case/Complaint from the Court of one State to the Court of another State under the provision of Section 406 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with Order XXXIX Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013.

 Taken from Shonee kapoor website below content:  https://www.shoneekapoor.com/cross-examination/  The subject of  cross-examination  is one of vital importance in the conduct of law cases because only it has the power to sift the truth from falsehood. According to Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, the examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination. Section 138 of Indian Evidence Act provides for the Order of examination. It states that the witness must first be examined in-chief, then the opposite party cross-examines him and if the party calling him so desires, may re-examine. Section 146 of the said act enables the cross-examiner to put certain questions in additions to the questions based on the relevant facts of the case. This section gives wide powers to the cross-examiner beyond the facts in issue. The main aim of cross-examination is to find out the truth and detection of falsehood in human testimony. It is desi...