Legal Reference Library

In the matter of M/S MADRAS PETROCHEM LTD. & ANR.  Vs BIFR & ORS., by  a judgment dated 29 Jan 2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 prevails over the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 to the extent of inconsistency therewith. The judgment has given in the context of a rather convoluted matter wherein petitions and appeals have been filed before several High Courts, DRTs and DRAT, primarily due to the difference in the opinion of various courts of law on primacy of several important Acts having Non Obstante clauses. The Hon'ble court in a 32 page judgement, the court stated that the following two questions which arise on the facts of this case::- (1) Whether the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 prevails over the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 19

a) issue in relation to revisional jurisdiction exercised by the High Court in rent matters; b) the scope of inquiry to examine the title of the landlord of the suit premises in eviction matters; c) whether all the co-owners/co- landlords of suit premises are necessary parties in the eviction petition filed under the Rent Laws d) law relating to power of attorney executed by principal in favour of his agent. 1) High Court while hearing revision petition arising out of eviction matter is concerned, it remains no more res integra and stands settled by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78. Justice R.M. Lodha, the learned Chief Justice. High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first ap

           CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  6756 of 2003 PETITIONER: Daulat Singh Surana & Others RESPONDENT: First Land Acquisition Collector & Others DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/11/2006 BENCH: ASHOK BHAN & DALVEER BHANDARI JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court delivered in FMAT No.6 of 1997 dated 10th October, 2002. The appellant is aggrieved by the Notification under Section 4 and declaration under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 dated 13th December, 1994 and 23rd June, 1995 respectively published and made by the Government of West Bengal in respect of premises no.4, Pretoria Street, Calcutta measuring more or less 0.0988 hectare (0.2441 acre). The appellant had challenged the said notification by filing a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. The learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition and quashed the notification. The said notification under section 4 reads as under:

In INDIAN MACHINERY COMPANY Vs M/S. ANSAL HOUSING & CONSTRUCTION LTD., the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that only question that has arisen in this appeal is whether a second complaint to the District Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is maintainable when the first complaint was dismissed for default or non- prosecution. The National Commission has taken the view in the impugned order that the second complaint would not be maintainable. The Hon'ble court decided that there is no provision parallel to the provision contained in Order 9 Rule 9(1) CPC which contains a prohibition that if a suit is dismissed in default of the plaintiff under Order 9 Rule 8, a second suit on the same cause of action would not lie. That being so, the rule of prohibition contained in Order 9 Rule 9(1) CPC cannot be extended to the proceedings before the District Forum or the State Commission. The fact that the case was not decided on merits and was dismissed in default of non-appear

High Court of Chhattisgarh has held that the exclusion of widowed daughter-in-law in compassionate appointment policy is constitutionally impermissible and to that extent void. Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal made this observation in Duliya Bai Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh. The High Court, in a petition filed by a widowed daughter in law of a deceased employee challenging the order rejecting her application seeking compassionate appointment, said that implied exclusion of daughter-in-law from the fray of consideration by the State Government without considering the fact as to whether the daughter-in-law is dependent or not is constitutionally impermissible. The Court observed “On marriage, wife becomes integral part of the husband’s marital room entitled to equal status of husband as a member of the family and, therefore, a woman on marriage becomes a member of her matrimonial family and she has rights and obligations in the family. A daughter-in-law is considered, traditionally, as Grih

Right to appeal is not inherent but created by statute Writ–C No 40360 of 2015 Yogesh Agarwal Vs Estate Officer & 2 Ors With Writ–C No 42744 of 2015 B M Nayar Vs Estate Officer & 2 Ors With Writ–C No 41568 of 2015 Anil Tripathi Vs Estate Officer & 2 Ors And Writ–C No 42745 of 2015 Rajiv Kumar @ Kukku Vs Estate Officer & Anr Appearance: For the petitioners: Mr K K Arora, Advocate Mr Akhtar Ali, Advocate For the respondents: Mr Ashok Mehta, Senior Advocate, ASGI Mr Satish Kumar Rai, Senior Panel Counsel, Central Government Mr Krishna Agrawal, Central Government Counsel Mr P S Pandey, Central Government Counsel Hon'ble Dr Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, CJ Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J Dated: 12/1/16 Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in Yogesh Agarwal vs. Union of India has held that eviction order passed under Section 5A of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 is not a

A recent verdict given by Justice Naveen Rao of the Hyderabad High Court states that daughters too are equally entitled to their deceased father’s terminal benefits. While dismissing a petition filed by one C Chandrasekhar, son of a deceased employee of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), the judge ruled that an employer is not at fault if he decides to distribute the terminal benefits of a deceased employee in equal parts among the sons, daughters and other heirs of that employee. Chandrasekhar has however challenged the decision on the basis of argument that his father had nominated his mother; she should receive all the benefits and also that his sister is married and is not entitled. Chandrasekhar had applied for a job under compassionate grounds. His father Rajagopal died in December 2014 while in service. However, the TTD, in accordance with the service records of its employee, Rajagopal, asked him to obtain a no-objection letter from his sister for securing a job in the TTD

A suicide note alone is not proof enough to charge someone with abetting a suicide, the Bombay high court has said in a decision that is likely to spur a debate on the contentious issue. The HC ruled last week that one cannot be held guilty of abetment “merely because a relationship fails”. There must be evidence of the accused having “intentionally aided, or instigated” the victim to end his or her life. The ruling came while the court was hearing an appeal filed by the state against a recent sessions court judgment. According to the state’s plea, the lower court had erred in acquitting Mumbai resident Anurag Singh, whom police had charged under section 306 and section 495 of the IPC for abetment and concealment of marriage. The prosecution said despite being already married, Singh had made a false promise of marriage to the deceased, who was a third-year college student. One day the young woman came to his house unannounced and discovered that he was living with his wife. She t

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 231 OF 2015 DAMODAR LAL ... APPELLANT (S) VERSUS SOHAN DEVI AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENT (S) The facts unfold the plight of a poor landlord languishing in courts for over fourty years. The case gets sadder when we note that appellant had been successful both in the trial court and the first appellate court and the saddest part is that the High Court in second appeal, went against him on a pure question of fact! Issue number-3 framed in Civil Regular Suit No. 191 of 1974 for eviction on the ground of unauthorised construction/material alteration, decided on 21.12.1989 in the Court of Munsiff, Bhilwara, Rajasthan, reads as follows: Whether the tenant has carried out permanent construction on the plot thereby causing a permanent change in the identity of the plot against the terms of the rent agreement? Having analysed and appreciated the evidence of PWs-1 and 2 and also DWs- 1 to 4, the trial court came to

Cash and valuables recovered by police in the course of investigation need not be necessarily handed over to their owners pending trial since criminal courts only decide on granting interim custody to a person who lays a better claim of possession over the properties and it is up to civil courts to decide on lawful ownership after conclusion of criminal trial, the Madras High Court Bench here has said. Justice M. Venugopal made the observations while dismissing a revision petition filed by an accused seeking custody of Rs. 1 lakh and 124 grams of gold jewellery seized from him by T. Kallupatti police near here in connection with a criminal case booked against him on a charge of marrying several women claiming to be an Intelligence Bureau official. The petitioner, Thiruvarulrajan, assailed an order of a Judicial Magistrate in Peraiyur who had handed over the cash and the jewels to the mother of a woman whom the petitioner had married last since the aged widow had produced her bank p

Bombay High Court : Allowing an appeal preferred against the trial court verdict, A.R. Joshi, J., acquitted film star Salman Khan of all the criminal charges, and held that the prosecution failed to discharge its burden of proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant was alleged to have run his car, under the influence of alcohol, over a group of persons sleeping on the footpath on 28th September, 2002. Earlier, the Trial Court had found him guilty of various offences under the Penal Code, 1860 including causing death by negligence against which the present appeal was preferred. After persual of the arguments, the Court held that prima facie the case cannot be entertained on its merit due to lack of substantial evidence and failure of the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court stated that the report brought by the prosecution for the intoxication of the appellant, did not match the standard of proof required for establishing the charges.  The Co

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 8542 of 2009 Decided On: 29.12.2015 Appellants: LIC of India Vs. Respondent: Insure Policy Plus Services Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Vikramajit Sen and Shiva Kirti Singh, JJ. Case Note: Insurance - Assignment of lapse insurance policy - Section 38 Insurance Act, 1938; The Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 - First Respondent dealt in assignment of life insurance policies - Also traded lapsed policies - Insurance policies required registration in Appellant's books - Registration of lapsed policies was declined by Appellant - Relied on two Circulars issued by it - Cited public policy considerations - Respondents succeeded in petition before High Court - Life insurance policies were not social security - Other jurisdictions allowed trade and assignment of lapsed policies - Appellant's Circulars were illegal - Were contrary to Section 38 of the Act - Whether insurance policies are freely tradable and a

M/s Ganapathy & Co vs. CIT (Supreme Court) dated 18/1/16 S. 256: While findings of fact found by the Tribunal are final and the High Court cannot reappraise the same, the High Court can take note of facts on record which are lost sight of by the Tribunal and also construe certain facts to be of significance as against the different view of the Tribunal (i) It is well settled that issues of fact determined by the Tribunal are final and the High Court in exercise of its reference jurisdiction should not act as an appellate Court to review such findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal by a process of reappreciation and reappraisal of the evidence on record. The aforesaid position in law has been consistently laid down by this Court in several of its pronouncements out of which, illustratively, reference may be made to Karnani Properties Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal [82 ITR 547], Rameshwar Prasad Bagla vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax, U.P. [87 ITR 421], Commis

The Supreme Court has held that the sufficiency of injury to cause death must be proved to sustain a conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and that cannot be inferred from the fact that death has taken place. Three Judge Bench comprising of the Chief Justice, T.S. Thakur, Justices A.K. Sikri and R. Banumati, in Nankaunoo vs State of UP, modified conviction of an a person who was convicted for murder as that under Section 304 Part 1 IPC. In this case, the appellant was accused of killing the deceased using a country made pistol which was never recovered during investigation. Relying on the oral testimony and medical report, the Trial Court had convicted the accused. The High Court affirmed conviction. He approached Apex Court. The Apex Court observed that in the light of unimpeachable oral evidence which is corroborated by the medical evidence, non-recovery of ‘country made pistol’ does not materially affect the case of the prosecution. The Court added that any omission on t

Patna High Court has held that Division Bench of a High Court cannot exercise its power of superintendence, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against an order made, in a suit, by a Single Bench of the High Court. Division Bench comprising of Acting Chief Justice I.A. Ansari and Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh observed that single Judge or a single Bench of a High Court is not a court subordinate to the Division Bench of the High Court. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.718 of 2016 =========================================================== ANIL KUMAR SHRIVASTAVA, SON OF LATE CHITRANJAN SAHAY VERMA, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA HARI SABHA CHOWK, P.S. – MITHANPURA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR .... .... PETITIONER VERSUS 1. SHAURYA SUNIL, S/O SUNIL KUMAR, RESIDENT OF MOHALLA – HARI SABHA CHOWK, P.S. MITHANPURA, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH CAV JUD

The Bombay High Court in Shakil Ahmad Jalaluddin Shaikh vs. Vahida Shakil Shaikh has held that, mere existence of a document like talaqnama, is not sufficient to render a valid Talaq. Justice M.S. Sonak held that, for a valid Talaq, it is not sufficient that the prescribed expressions are pronounced thrice but the stages it is preceded by, are required to be pleaded and proved before the Court, if disputed by wife. Bombay High Court IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2201 OF 2007 Shakil Ahmad Jalaluddin Shaikh .. Petitioner vs. Vahida Shakil Shaikh & Anr. .. Respondents Mr. R. S. Khadapkar for Petitioner. Ms Tejasweeta Bhosale h/f. Mr. R. S. Kate for Respondent No. 1 CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.  Date of Reserving the Judgment : 15 January 2016  Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 20 January 2016

Tenants cannot be evicted using provisions of SARFAESI Act In a significant ruling, Supreme Court of India has held that the provisions of the SARFAESI Act cannot override the provisions of the Rent Control Act. Apex Court Bench comprising of Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Amitava Roy, in Vishal N. Kalsaria vs. Bank of India, said that non obstante clause as in section 35 of the SARFAESI Act cannot be used to bulldoze the statutory rights vested on the tenants under the Rent Control Act. Context The Appellants were the tenants occupying the property mortgaged in the Bank. Since the landlord defaulted payment of dues, the Bank proceeded under SARFAESI Act, and the Magistrate allowed the application of the bank seeking possession of the mortgaged properties which are in actual possession of the Appellant. The Appellants approached Small causes court and the court passed an interim injunction against obstructing the possession of the appellant over the suit premises during the pendency of

Bombay High Court has come down heavily on police officers for illegally detaining two doctors for more than two weeks in connection with a crime which was bailable. Division Bench comprising of Justices Ranjit More and Anuja Prabhudessai directed the Commissioner of Police to enquire into the matter of illegal detention and to take disciplinary action against the erring police officers. Costs of Rs. 50,000 was also directed to be paid to the doctors, which is to be borne by the errant police officers themselves. In this case, allegation against these doctors, who were brothers of the main accused, was that they cheated the complainant by giving false promise of marriage and thereby calling it off. The main accused was also charged with Section 376 IPC.  All of them were arrested on 7th June 2015 and despite directions of the High Court to consider their bail applications expeditiously, the Sessions Court failed to do so. They were finally released on 24th June 2015 following direction

Supreme Court: While deciding upon the issue that whether an accused can be convicted only on the basis of suspicion and circumstantial evidence without any direct proof given by the prosecution, the Division Bench of V. Gopala Gowda and Amitava Roy, JJ., held that it would be unjustified to convict an accused only on the basis of suspicion and circumstantial evidence until and unless that evidences are corroborative with direct proof given by the prosecution. The Court thereby set aside the decision of High Court of Patna and held that an accused cannot be convicted until and unless all charges against him are proved beyond any reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The appellant and deceased were husband and wife, while returning from their honeymoon the deceased went missing. The prosecution (parents of deceased) filed a complaint against appellant and his parents that they murdered the deceased due to non-fulfilment of their dowry demands. The High Court of Patna convicted appellant

Punjab and Haryana High Court: While considering the present issue that whether the petitioners should be granted protection of their life by the State, R.S. Malik, J., observed that Article 21 of the Constitution, that enshrines the most precious fundamental right to life and liberty, must be protected. However the Court also stated that individual freedom being subject to time tested and established social norms is also an important part of the constitutional philosophy. The petitioners therefore, were held to be entitled for the protection of their life and liberty by the State. In the present case came in the wake of the private respondent’s refusal to accept the marriage of the petitioners. The petitioners via their counsel R.K. Mattoo, contended before the Court that there is an apprehension for their life and liberty from the private respondents. The Court relying on the decisions laid down by the Supreme Court A.K.Gopalan v. State of Madras, AIR 1950 SC 27, Kartar Singh v. St

Bombay High Court: While deciding the appeal preferred against the judgement of the Sessions Court, which denied the maintenance granted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karad,  M.S. Sonak J. modified the order of the Judicial Magistrate First Class and directed the respondent to pay  maintenance on monthly basis to the applicant with effect from 1 January 2015 thereby setting aside the order of the Sessions Court. In the present case Mr. Sawant, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the evidence on record does establish that the applicant was harassed and therefore compelled to live away from the respondent and the Additional Sessions Judge exceeded the bounds of revisional jurisdiction in interfering with the well reasoned decision of the Judicial Magistrate First Class. On the contrary counsel for the respondent Ms. Bhosale submitted that the Additional Sessions Judge, upon proper appreciation of the material on record has rightly held that the Applicant has aban

Bombay High Court has held Kishor Dattatraya Shinde vs. State of Maharashtra, held that mere harassment alone, would not amount to abetting a person to commit suicide. Division bench comprising of Justice Ranjit More and Justice V. L. Achliya, there has to be a direct or clear intention or means rea to commit the offence to attract the provisions of section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner in this application was a senior official of the deceased. He was accused of the offence under Section 306 of the IPC. The allegations made in the FIR was that the senior officers of deceased were harassing him and he was not given leave and because of that he committed suicide. In the suicide note, deceased has stated that the petitioner and two others made him suffer hardships. Perusing the FIR as well as suicide-note, the Court said that it does not contain anything to suggest that the Applicant or other officers had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or engaged in conspiracy to

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 144 — Power to order restitution:  S. 144 CPC vests expansive power in court. Such power must be exercised to ensure equity, fairness and justice to  both  the parties. For ascertaining the value of property which is no longer available for restitution on account of it having been further sold, etc., court should adopt a realistic and verifiable approach instead of resorting to hypothetical and presumptive value. Court should keep under consideration not only the loss suffered by the party entitled to restitution but also the gain, if any, made by the other party who is obliged to make restitution. No unmerited injustice should be caused to either party. [Citibank N.A. v. Hiten P. Dalal IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION                         CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3580 OF 2005 Citibank N.A.                                       …..Appellant       Versus Hiten P. Dalal & Ors.        

Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal Vs. Bank of India & Ors, Dated on AUGUST 05, 2015. [Civil Appeal No.5924 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.27674 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No.5925 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.36316 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No.5926 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.38436 of 2012] [Civil Appeal No.5927 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.5789 of 2013] Judgment Details Baleshwar Dayal Jaiswal Vs. Bank of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No.5924 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.27674 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No.5925 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.36316 of 2011] [Civil Appeal No.5926 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.38436 of 2012] [Civil Appeal No.5927 of 2015 arising out of SLP (C) No.5789 of 2013] ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The question in this batch of appeals is whether the Appellate Tribunal under the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ("the SARFAESI Act") has

High Court of Australia: In the instant case, the respondent sustained serious spinal injuries which rendered her paraplegic, when she was thrown from the back seat of a car being driven by the appellant who was drunk at the time of the accident. The issue for determination was whether the respondent was contributorily negligent  for choosing to travel in the car driven by the appellant when she ought to have known that he was intoxicated and, secondly, for failing to engage her seatbelt. The trial Judge rejected the contention of the respondent that the appellant’s erratic driving had prevented her from fastening her seatbelt and held that failure to wear a seatbelt constitutes contributory negligence under Section 49 of the Civil Liability Act 1936. The Judge further held that the exception in Section 47(2)(b) of the Act applies in the present case as the respondent could not reasonably be expected to have avoided the risk of riding with the appellant in the circumstances. On appeal

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal No. 14626 of 2015 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 30710 of 2015) Decided On: 16.12.2015 Appellants: Kajoma Kumari Vs. Respondent: The Union of India (UOI) Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Anil R. Dave and A.K. Goel, JJ. Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Kumar Rajesh Singh and Niranjana Singh, Advs. For Respondents/Defendant: Atul Chitale, Sr. Adv., Sunita Gautam, Ranjit Kumar, Advs. for S.N. Terdal, Adv. When there is a suit for compensation, all legal heirs of the dead person must be made parties. It can be done even at a belated stage, the Supreme Court stated in the case, Kajom Kumari vs Union of India. If the court decides that compensation must be paid, all the heirs must get the benefit; some of them cannot be left out. The Supreme Court asked the high court to join all heirs as parties and proceed on merits of the case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Civil Appeal Nos. 49-50 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 37534-37535 of 2013) Decided On: 07.01.2016 Appellants: Lakhmi Chand Vs. Respondent: Reliance General Insurance Hon'ble Judges/Coram: T.S. Thakur, C.J.I. and V. Gopala Gowda, J. Counsels: For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Munawwar Naseem, Adv. For Respondents/Defendant: Garvesh Kabra, Adv. Subject: Consumer Subject: Insurance Catch Words Mentioned IN Acts/Rules/Orders: Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 12, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 21, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 149(2), Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 163A, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 166; Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 279, Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 304A, Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 337, Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 338, Indian Penal Code (IPC) - Section 427 Cases Referred: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pravinbhai D. Prajapati IV 2010