Order Taking Cognizance Must Reflect Application Of Mind; Section 197 CrPC Sanction Mandatory For Prosecuting Public Servants: Karnataka High Court Plaint Cannot Be Rejected Partially Against Specific Defendants Or Properties; Limitation Is A Triable Issue: Telangana High Court Employee Having National Trade Certificate & Prior Experience To Be Treated As 'Highly Skilled' For Compensation: Orissa High Court Insurance Company Entitled To Subpoena Investigating Officer For Vehicle Records When Insured Is Untraceable: Madras High Court Seller's Fraudulent Conduct & Non-Disclosure Of Mortgage Justify Refund Of Advance Sale Consideration: Kerala High Court Complaint Under Section 138 NI Act Filed By Partner On Behalf Of Firm Maintainable Even Without Specific Authorization Letter: Gujarat High Court Extension Of Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act Requires Public Prosecutor's Independent Report, Not Just IO's Request: Andhra Pradesh High Court Orissa Grama Panchayats Act | No Bar On Rescheduling No-Confidence Motion Meeting Before Its Commencement: High Court Non-Preparation Of ‘Nil’ Seizure List After Searching Raiding Officer Not Fatal To NDPS Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Registration Of Trademark Confers Exclusive Right To Sue For Infringement Irrespective Of Whether Mark Is In Use: Delhi High Court Presence Of Magistrate Not Mandatory For Recording Dying Declaration; Conviction Can Be Based On DD Recorded By Police: Bombay High Court Routine Bank Transfers Between Spouses For Daily Needs Are Gratuitous Payments, Not Recoverable As Entrusted Funds: Kerala High Court Clerical Lapses Under Work Pressure Amount To Dereliction Of Duty, Not Crime: Madras High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Deputy BDO Burden Of Proving Sale Deed Is Bona Fide Lies On Beneficiary If Executant Is Illiterate Or Vulnerable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Employee Cannot Take Advantage Of Own Delay; Employer Not Required To Preserve Disciplinary Records For Eternity: Bombay High Court Deadline To File Evidence Under Rule 45 Trade Marks Rules Is Directory, Registrar Can Extend Time Under Section 131: Bombay High Court Exclusion Of Interest In Insurance Policy Is Conditional; Insurer Must Plead & Prove Employer's Failure To Comply With Act To Avoid Liability: Kerala High Court Practicing Lawyer Entitled To Interim Maintenance From Husband If Income Is Insufficient To Maintain Standard Of Living: Orissa High Court Section 138 NI Act Offences Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Revision Or Appeal: Madras High Court Unsuccessful Party Seeking Post-Award Interim Relief Under Section 9 Faces 'Higher Threshold', Must Show Rare & Compelling Circumstances: Bombay High Court

Calcutta High Court: Stridhan Recovery and Gifted Money Claims Evaluated

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justices Partha Sarathi Chatterjee and Tapabrata Chakraborty, delivered a meticulous judgment shedding light on the intricacies of stridhan recovery and claims regarding gifted money. The court meticulously examined the evidence and legal aspects surrounding the case, offering valuable insights into the application of legal principles.

The judgment, which delves into the realms of civil law, revolves around a dispute involving the recovery of stridhan articles and money gifted for specific purposes. The Honorable Bench's observations in this case have brought forth important insights into the interpretation of legal provisions and the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings.

In the observations, Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee highlighted the importance of evaluating evidence meticulously, stating, "Witnesses are of three types, namely, wholly reliable, wholly unreliable, and neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable. In the first two, conclusions may be arrived at by accepting or rejecting evidence, but in the case of the third, the court has to be circumspect and look for corroboration in material particulars by reliable testimony, direct or circumstantial."

Furthermore, Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty emphasized the need for careful consideration of evidence's consistency, stating, "The evidence of PW-1 is not consistent to the full extent. Her evidence relating to ornaments has not found support in evidence of PW-2, and there is no documentary evidence to corroborate the evidence of PW-1. In cross-examination, her evidence has been shaken to some extent."

The judgment addressed the application of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as well as the provisions of Sections 3, 91, and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court explored the concept of constructive res judicata and the impact of evidence in different legal proceedings, drawing on legal precedents to elucidate its conclusions.

Honourable Bench set aside part of the decree and dismissed a cross-objection, allocating costs accordingly. The court provided comprehensive guidelines for decree issuance and the transmission of records.

Date of Decision: 11 August 2023

Sanjay Pareek & Ors. vs Smt. Madhushree Sharma (Pareek)       

Latest Legal News