Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from December, 2016

HC Quashes Jail Term In Exchange For Donation To Religious Trust

In a curious case, the High Court of Gujarat has scrapped the jail term for an accused, on the submission that he had contributed to a religious trust. The Court was hearing an appeal filed against an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Valsad, against the appellant, Mr. Manubhai Laljibhai Ambaliya, for having raised false evidence. Mr. Ambaliya had been ordered to undergo sentence of three months, and to pay a fine of Rs.500. Setting aside the order, the Court noted that the sentence passed by the Trial Court was “very harsh”, and that the appellant had paid Rs. 50,000 to the Shree Chamunda Mataji Dungar Trust. “In view of the statement made by learned advocate of the appellant, this Court is not going into merits of the case. In view the order for sentence passed by the trial Court, the same is very harsh in nature and the appellant has paid Rs.50000/- and therefore, the impugned order is required to be quashed and set aside,” Justice Z.K. Saiyed observed. Read more at: http://www.

No compassionate appointment if Crisis Is Over For The Family Of Deceased Employee

The High Court of Rajasthan in Uco Bank & Ors. v. Devi Kishan Harijan held that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be allowed if the period of crisis is over for the family of the deceased employee. “In view of the various pronouncements cited above, it is apparently clear that the philosophy behind giving compassionate appointment is just to help the family in harness to get over the immediate crisis by the loss of sole breadwinner. This category of appointment cannot be claimed as a right after lapse of the period when the crisis is over. More so, the financial status of the family is also to be looked into as per the scheme framed by the employer while giving compassionate appointment and such appointment cannot be conferred contrary to the para-meters of the scheme,” the Bench comprising Justice Sangeet Lodha and Justice Deepak Maheshwari observed. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/compassionate-appointment-cannot-allowed-period-crisis-family-deceased-employee-

Income from property acquired for letting out is "income from business"

In Mack Soft Tech Pvt.Ltd., Hyd vs Dcit Hyderabad, the appeal was filed by the assessed against the order of the CIT (A)-4, Hyderabad dated 30.01.2015 confirming the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 92CA r.w.s. 144C of the I.T. Act, wherein the AO has assessed income derived by the assessee from the business of operation and maintenance of information Technology Park as "Income from house property". The assessed argued that the company was allotted/sold land by the APIIC to be used only for the specific purpose of setting up IT facility i.e., IT software, IT enabled service and IT infrastructure and that the assessee has developed an integrated business facility thereon called "Q-city" which has been exploited as a commercial asset in the business carried on by it and accordingly, the learned C.I.T(Appeals) ought to have held that the income derived by the assessee from the IT park is assessable as income from business. The Appellant Tribunal referring

Important principles of what is a "charitable purpose"

No denial of exemption to charitable society just because it was charging fees for charitable activities (i) The ratio laid down in Sole Trustee, Loka Shikshana Trust v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mysore 101 ITR 234 (SC), CIT vs. Andhra Chamber of Commerce 55 ITR 722 (SC) and Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Gujarat v. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers Association 121 ITR 1 is that in the case of entity or organization whose objects are several, some of which are charitable and non-charitable; the test of predominant object for which the organization was set up is alone to be applied. Therefore, in the present case, the research and development in the Information Technology in the Banking Sector is the prime object for which the Appellant society was created by the Reserve Bank of India as is evident from the genesis of the organization. Offer of M.Tech course, Ph.D. programmes are only incidental for attainment of main objects of the organization. The primary object of promo

Large gain from penny stock not always bogus

In Dolarrai Hemani vs. ITO, the Tax Tribunal held that the fact that the stock is thinly traded and there is unusually high gain is not sufficient to treat the long-term capital gains as bogus when all the paper work is in order. The revenue has to bring material on record to support its finding that there has been collusion / connivance between the broker and the assessee for the introduction of its unaccounted money.

Insurance coverage cannot be available for a vague or indefinite period

National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. V. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd. 16.12.2016 Consumer Insurance coverage cannot be available for a vague or indefinite period Government of Andhra Pradesh awarded work of Investigation, Design and Execution of Tunnel -1 & Tunnel - 2, including Head Regulator at entrance of portal of Tunnel - 1 of Srisailam Left Bank Canal Tunnel Scheme of AMR project from NSRSP Reservoir, to Complainant Company. Case of Complainant is that project site and surrounding areas having been hit by heavy and incessant rains, it got completely sub-merged with water causing substantial damage to its property including Tunnel Boring Machines, (TBMs) which were under erection at that time on inlet of tunnel. Intimation of loss having been given to insurer, Cunningham Lindsey International Pvt. Ltd. were appointed as surveyors for assessing loss. Surveyors however informed Complainant that, existing CAR policy did n

Only Employer can decide the eligibility criteria required by candidate for a particular post

High Court of Delhi Amit v. Union of India and Anr. Service Only Employer and not the Court can decide the eligibility criteria required by candidate to be satisfied for being appointed to post By present writ petition, Petitioner seeks the relief of employment with Respondent no.2/Food Corporation of India/employer to post of Assistant Grade-III (General). Petitioner was denied appointment on ground that, Petitioner only has three years diploma in Hotel Management instead of the required graduation degree of a recognized university, and which was the term of the recruitment process in terms of the advertisement. Admittedly, Petitioner does not have a graduation degree from a recognized University and he is only claiming equivalence of his Diploma in Hotel Management to a graduation degree. In any case it is for employer, and not this Court, to decide what are the specific eligibility criteria required by a candidate for being appointed to the post. In case of Sh. Mahesh Chan

Deposit of compensation amount in government treasury is not equivalent to compensation

High Court of Bombay Ramesh Narayan Patil and Others v. The State of Maharashtra and Others Land Acquisition Deposit of compensation amount in government treasury is not equivalent to compensation paid to landowners/persons interested Instant Petition by Petitioners claiming to be legal heirs of owner of land situated at Talavali village, Taluka and District Thane within municipal limits of Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation are seeking declaration to effect that, acquisition proceedings in respect of said land, resulting in award dated 31st August, 1984 deemed to have lapsed in view of Section 24 of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Learned Senior Counsel for Corporation, land owner having refused to accept amount of compensation, benefit of Section 24 of Act of 2013 will not be available to Petitioners. Issue involved is whether offer by Special Land Acquisition Officer to pay compensation amount to land

Bombay HC Lays Down Rules For Transfer Of Petitions To NCLT

On December 7, 2016, a notification was issued by the Central Government, through the Corporate Ministry, it stated- All petitions relating to winding up under clause (e) of Section 433 pending before High Courts, and which have not been served on the Respondent as required by Rule 26 of the Companies (Court) Rules, 1959, stand transferred to the appropriate Bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (“NCLT”) exercising territorial jurisdiction over the mater. In light of the above notification, Neelkamal Realtors contended before the High Court that the winding up petitions filed against it, ought to be transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal. Whereas the petitioners argued that since the petition has been served to the respondents under Rule 26, the transfer notification did not apply to them and the Bombay High Court retains its jurisdiction over them. Since the issue pertains to a particular notification that may potentially decide the fate of many petitions filed before t

Remedy available to the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy

The Chhattisgarh High Court has held in Rajesh Kumar Agrawal vs Tulsi Electronic, & Others,  that the remedy available to the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy. Other statutory remedy available to the consumer under other statutory laws would not bar the consumer to avail of that ‘additional’ remedy, it said. Justice Sanjay K Agrawal observed that district and state forums were wrong in rejecting the complaint on the ground of availability of alternative remedy under Section 7-B of the Telegraph Act. Rajesh Kumar Agrawal, had complained before the district forum alleging that his service provider adopted unfair trade practice in providing telecom services though he had paid for data service and while using the data services, balance lying in call account was deducted unauthorisedly. The district forum had relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in General Manager, Telecom, v. M Krishnan and another to hold that the petitioner has a speci

Whether the order passed by the Foreign Court amounts to a “decree” and the same is executable

In M/s Alcon Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Celem S.A. of FOS 34320 Roujan, the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court OF India were the following :- (1) Whether the order passed by the Foreign Court falls within the Exceptions to Section 13 of the CPC? (2) Whether the order passed by the Foreign Court amounts to a “decree” and the same is executable? (3) If answer to issue No. 2 is in affirmative, whether the decree for costs would fall within the ambit of Explanation 2 of Section 44A (3) of CPC and makes it inexecutable? (4) Whether interest on costs would fall within the ambit of Explanation 2 of Section 44A of CPC? (5) Whether the interest on costs can be executed in India in view of deletion of Section 35(3) of CPC? In reply the Hon'ble Court held that - 1) The principles of comity of nation demand us to respect the order of English Court. Even in regard to an interlocutory order, Indian Courts have to give due weight to such order unless it falls under any of the exc

Land Belonging To Religious Bodies Can Be Acquired To Serve Larger Public Purpose

In Church Of North India Trust Association vs Union of India, the Allahabad High Court has held that land belonging to religious bodies can be acquired by the government for achieving a larger public purpose. A division bench of Justice V K Shukla and Justice MC Tripathi has dismissed a petition filed by the Church of North India Association challenging a notification by which its land was acquired for construction of a bypass road connecting Agra with Etawah. The petitioners contended that Constitution of India provides for Right to Freedom of Religion under Article 25 and the Freedom to Manage Religious Affairs under Article 25 and 26 of the Constitution of India. As the Christian community has their place of worship viz Moore Memorial Church, Shikohabad, Firozabad district, and an ancient graveyard, which is operative till date, on the land concerned and these properties are place of worship under freedom of conscience, the removal of the church and the graveyard by the impugned not

Customs Dept Must Give Show-Cause Notice By 6 Months In Case Of Seizure/Detention Of Goods

The Delhi High Court in Jatinder Kumar Sachdeva vs. The Union Of India And Ors, has clarified that when goods are seized/confiscated, the Customs Department must give a show cause notice under Section 124(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (the ‘Act’) within six months or within the extended period of further six months, otherwise the goods have to be released to the person from whom they have been seized. Jatinder Kumar arrived from Dubai at IGI Airport Terminal T-3 and was intercepted by Customs officials at the exit gate where he was questioned for detainable goods being in his possession. His gold kara (bracelet) was seized on 11th Februar,y 2015, on the ground that it was imported from Dubai. Kumar sought release of the gold kara along with supporting documents to show that the said kara was his ancestral jewellery and was owned by him even before leaving for Dubai. His representation was not accepted and the kara had not been released till date. Kumar contended that since the Customa au

Sale deed - Intention of the parties to be gathered from the language of the deed

In Ramvilas (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Karim Khan, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India was whether whenever a conveyance of the property by a Sale Deed is accompanied by a separate document, it has to be taken as re-conveyance and it was not a mortgage. The Hon'ble court held that in Bhaskar Waman Joshi (D) and Ors. v. Shrinarayan Rambilas Agarwal, this Court has succinctly considered the question as to whether a transaction ostensibly of a sale may be regarded as a mortgage and held that it is one of intention of the parties to be gathered from the language of the deed interpreted in the light of the surrounding circumstances.

In rent proceedings a company or firm as the lessee/tenant is the only necessary party

In Nandkishor Savalaram Malu (Dead) Through Lrs. Vs. Hanumanmal G. Biyani (D) Thr. Lrs. & Ors., the matter was eviction of a partnership firm which was the lessee/tenant and whether employees as well as the partners have to be made parties to the suit. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that " we are of the considered opinion that neither the Firm nor their partners and nor defendant no.1 had any legal right to remain in possession of the suit house. The reason being that so far as the Firm and its partners were concerned (defendant Nos. 2 to 9), they being the tenant rightly suffered the decree for payment of arrears of rent and eviction under the Rent Act and so far as defendant no.1 was concerned, he was neither an owner of the suit house nor a tenant inducted by the appellants and nor a licensee but was held to be an employee of the Firm and a rank trespasser in the suit house. 24) The legal effect of such eviction decree under the Rent Act was that the possessio

Duty of magistrate when issuing summon/warrant or dismissing complaint

In Arun Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. , the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court has held that a Magistrate may dismiss a complaint (a) if he finds that no offence has been committed upon the statement of the complainant; (b) if he distrust the statements by the complainant, and (c) if he finds that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding. For issuing the process against the accused, it has to be only seen whether prima facie case has been made out. The Magistrate is not required to go deep into the probative value of material on record. The Magistrate before issuing process against the accused must exercise his judicial mind to the facts of the case and law applicable thereto. The Court is not required to assess the evidence and consider the probabilities or improbabilities of the version of the complaint and or evaluate the sworn statement of the complainant or witness. The Magistrate under law at this stage is not permitted to embark upon meticulous examination of the evidence or

Gratuity Can Be Denied Only When There Is Termination On Account Of Misconduct

The Supreme Court in Jorsingh Govind Vanjari Vs. Divisional Controller Maharashtra, State Road Transport Corporation, has held that in order to deny gratuity to an employee, it is not enough that the alleged misconduct of the employee constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude as per the report of the domestic inquiry, but there must be termination on account of the alleged misconduct, which constitutes an offence involving moral turpitude. In the instant case, a bus conductor was terminated on the allegation that he had collected fare from six passengers without issuing tickets. In the domestic inquiry, he was found guilty but the Labour court set aside the termination order. But taking note of the fact that he had crossed the age of superannuation, instead of reinstatement, 50 per cent of the back wages from the date of termination till the date of superannuation with all other service benefits were granted. On appeal by the employer, the Bombay High Court modified the award an

Magistrate Must Investigate Before Summoning Accused Residing In Far-Off Place

The Supreme Court in Abhijit Pawar vs. Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar, has emphasised that in cases where the accused is residing at a place beyond the area in which the magistrate exercises his jurisdiction, it is mandatory on the part of the magistrate to conduct an inquiry or investigation before issuing the process. A complaint was lodged by a policeman against editors, publishers and printers of a newspaper for publishing very offensive and contained libellous satire against him, in connection with a raid conducted by the Lokayuktha. The magistrate summoned all the accused and on the writ petitions preferred by two of the accused, the high court dropped proceedings against one of the accused and allowed the magistrate to continue proceedings against another. This order of high court was assailed by the accused and the complainant before the apex court. The bench headed by Justice AK Sikri observed that the purpose or objective behind 2005 amendment to Section 202 CrPC was to ward off f

Section 10A of IT Act is a provision for deduction and not exemption

The Supreme Court, in CIT vs M/S Yokogawa India Ltd, has held that Section 10A of the Income Tax Act is a provision for deduction and not exemption. However, the court clarified that the stage of deduction would be while computing the gross total income of the eligible undertaking and not at the stage of computation of the total income. The bench headed by Justice Ranjan Gogoi observed that introduction of the word ‘deduction’ in Section 10A by the amendment embodies a clear enunciation of the legislative decision to alter its nature from one providing for exemption to one providing for deductions. The court also said that though the difference between the two expressions ‘exemption’ and ‘deduction’, may appear to be the same i.e. immunity from taxation, the practical effect of it would be wholly different. The court also observed that retention of Section 80HHC and 80HHE of the Income Tax Act, despite the amendment of Section 10A, indicates that some additional benefits to eligible Se

Two Tier Arbitration Procedure Permissible Under The Laws Of India

In a landmark judgment accepting the concept of ‘two tier arbitration’ or ‘second instance arbitration’, a three judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices Madan B. Lokur, R.K Agrawal and D.Y Chandrachud answering a reference made in 2006 due to divergence of opinions between Justice S.B.Sinha and Tarun Chatterjee, held that arbitration clauses which provide for a two- step arbitration process are valid under Indian arbitral jurisprudence. In a nutshell, brief facts of the dispute are that M/s. Centrotrade Minerals and Metal Inc., and the Hindustan Copper Limited, entered into a contract for sale of 15,500 DMT of Copper Concentrate to be delivered at Kandla Port in the State of Gujarat in two separate consignments.After the consignments were delivered, the payments therefor had been made. However, a dispute arose between the parties as regard the dry weight of concentrate copper. Clause 14 of the contract contained an arbitration agreement which read: “All disputes or diff

Mobile Towers Come Within Ambit Of ‘Land And Building’ For Levying Property Tax

A two judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justices Ranjan Gogoi and P.C.Pant in Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v GTL Infrastructure Ltd. & Ors. Etc. has held that mobile towers come within the fold of ‘land and building’ appearing in 21 Entry 49 List II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and can be termed as a ‘building’ for the purposes of levy of property tax. The bench was hearing a batch mattersarising from impugned judgments passed by the Gujarat High Court declaring Section 145A of the Gujarat Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as “the Gujarat Act”) as ultra vires the Constitution, the Bombay High Court which in a somewhat similar challenge by the order under challenge had held that the levy of property tax on mobile towers should not be entertained and the aggrieved writ petitioners therein (cellular operators) should be left with the option of exhausting the alternate remedies provided by the Bombay Provincial Municipal

Assessing Officer to apply mind while reopening assessment

In Elecon Engineering Co Ltd vs. ACIT, the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that under Section 147 of the IT Act, If the AO reopens the assessment on information supplied by the audit party without application of mind, the reopening is invalid. Likewise, if the AO disputes the findings of the audit party, he is not entitled to reopen the assessment. The reasons must show independent application of mind of the AO

Assessing Officer need not formally record dissatisfaction while disallowing expense

In IndiaBulls Financial Services Ltd vs. DCIT, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, while hearing the appeal  against order of the Appellant Tribunal decided that The fact that the AO did not expressly record his dissatisfaction with the assessee's working under Section 14A and Rule 8D of the IT Act does not mean that he cannot make the disallowance. The AO need not pay lip service and formally record dissatisfaction. It is sufficient if the order shows due application of mind to all aspects.

Sec 50C of IT Act does not apply to leasehold property

In CIT vs. Greenfield Hotels & Estates Pvt. Ltd, the issue before the Tribunal was whether Section 50C of the Act would be applicable to transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings. The Tribunal followed its decision in Atul G. Puranik vs. ITO (ITA No.3051/Mum/2010) decided on 13 May 2011 which held that Section 50C is not applicable while computing capital gains on transfer of leasehold rights in land and buildings. On appeal by the department to the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held dismissing the appeal:

Income Tax - Valuation of share of privately held companies

In Amritlal T. Shah vs. ITO, the ITAT Mumbai held that In valuing the shares of a privately held co, the “enterprise valuation” has to be taken by valuing even the assets held by subsidiaries of the Company. It is common for the sellers to charge a “controlling premium” for the sale of the shares. Such transfers to enable restructuring and re-aligning the shareholding pattern are genuine and bona fide. The alleged excess consideration for the sale of the shares cannot be treated as “unexplained income”

Duties of a court of appeal

In Laliteshwar Prasad Singh Vs. S.P. Srivastava (D) thr. Lrs., an appeal arose before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India out of the judgment of High Court of Patna in First Appeal reversing the judgment of the trial court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remitted the matter back to the High Court for consideration of the matter afresh and held that it is well settled that the first appellate court shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for decision. However, it is equally well settled that mere omission to frame point/points for determination does not vitiate the judgment of the first appellate court provided that the first appellate court records its reasons based on evidence adduced by both the parties. An appellate court is the final court of facts. The judgment of the appellate court must therefore reflect court’s application of mind and record its findings supported by reasons. The

Nomination Cannot Override Law Of Succession

A division bench of the Bombay High Court  in Shakti Yezdani and Another. vs  Jayanand Jayant Salgaonkar and Others.,   has held that the right of succession overrides the rights of a nominee. The bench of Justices AS Oka and AA Sayed have held that the rights of the successors prevail over that of the nominee of a holder of shares or securities appointed under Section 109A of Companies Act, 1953. The division bench was hearing appeals arising out of an order passed by a single bench. By an order dated March 31, 2015 a single judge of the Bombay High Court held that in the case of Harsha Nitin Kokate v. The Saraswat Cooperative Bank Limited(Kokate case) the view taken by Roshan Dalvi J was per incuriam or bad in law. These appeals were placed before the division bench after the Chief Justice passed an administrative order directing the same. The primary dispute arises out of a suit regarding the administration of estate of late Jayant Shivram Salgaonkar who died in August 2013. Defenda

Employee Of ‘Tenant’ Partnership Firm Not Necessary Party In Rent Proceedings

The Supreme Court in Nandkishor Savalaram Malu vs. Hanumanmal G. Biyani, has held that when a partnership firm is the tenant, then an employee of the firm is not a necessary party to the eviction proceedings initiated by the landlord. The bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice AM Sapre held that such persons since claim through the firm, they have no right of their own in the tenancy and in the demised property qua landlord. The trial court, though passed decree against the firm and its partners, found that no eviction decree can be passed against the employee of the partnership firm as he was in an unauthorised occupation of the suit house as a trespasser. Liberty to file a separate suit against the employee was granted to the landlord. On an appeal by landlord, the First Appellate Court held that being an employee of the firm, he was bound by the decree passed against the firm and its partners. The high court, exercising its revisional powers, restored the trial court order se

Bombay HC Issues Guidelines On Disposal Of Motor Accident Claim Cases

The Madras High Court has held that a widow is equally entitled, even after remarrying, to receive the Provident Fund amount from her late husband’s account. The court reiterated the fact that the bar under Section 24 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was deleted in September 2005, upholding her right to claim herself as a legal representative of her deceased husband. The petitioner had remarried following her husband’s death in 2001. In 2004, on an appeal by the mother of the deceased, the Principal Subordinate Judge had given her the sole right to obtain the amount lying in her son’s Provident Fund account. The widow had preferred an appeal against the said order. Justice N Kirubakaran reiterated the provisions of the Succession Act, 1956, and the Hindu Widow Re-marriage Act, 1856, and held that, ‘the right of the widow not only to remarry, but also to inherit the property of the late husband has been declared and the women, including widows, are treated as co-parcener on par with t

High Court Is Not A Disciplinary Authority

The Supreme Court in Chief Executive Officer, Krishna District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd. and Another vs. K. Hanumantha Rao and Another, has set aside an impugned judgment of a division bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court holding that decision qua the nature and quantum is the prerogative of the disciplinary authority and it is not the function of the high court to decide the same. Hanumantha Rao was a supervisor of five Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies (PACSs). He failed in discharging his duties properly of supervising the same, which led to cheating by members of the Nidamanuru PACS, resulting in misappropriation of the society funds, the amount totalling up to over Rs.47 crore, for which disciplinary action was initiated against him. In the said inquiry, charges were proved and as a result, the disciplinary authority (consisting of the general manager) inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service upon him. This was confirmed by the appellate authority (being t

IPC Doesn’t Provide For Vicarious Liability For Offence By A Company

The Supreme Court  in HDFC Securities Ltd. & Ors vs State of Maharashtra & Anr. has recently held that the Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not provide for vicarious liability for any offence alleged to be committed by a company. A division bench of Justice PC Ghose and Justice Amitava Roy also held that if and when a statute contemplates creation of such a legal fiction, it provides specifically therefore, e.g. Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Bench has relied on a previous judgment of Supreme Court in S.K. Alagh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors, in which it is held that the Indian Penal Code, save and except some provisions specifically providing therefore, does not contemplate any vicarious liability on the part of a party who is not charged directly for commission of an offence. The court has also relied on another judgment in Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat, wherein it is held as follows: “The Indian Penal Code does not contain any provision for attaching vicariou

Part payment cannot defeat the entire cause of action in cheque bouncing

In Hazi Jahangir Molla Vs. Md. Alim Mallick, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decided that Part payment cannot defeat the entire cause of action. Further Even if one person who has no money lending licence cannot be debarred from granting any accommodation loan to his friend or other person on him he has confidence. The opposite party took the accommodation loan and he cannot take the shelter of the money lenders’ act to defraud the person who accommodated him. Taking into consideration the factual aspects of this case this revisional application is to be decided on the following points. (1) Whether the demand notice was defective as because a part payment to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- was accepted and that is the departure from the cause of action itself? (2) Whether the complaint is barred by limitation? (3) Whether the cheque was issued in discharge of existing liability? (4) Whether the part payment of cheque is enough to defeat the entire cause of action? (5) Whethe

Accused Person cannot be Forced to Answer Incriminating Questions

The Supreme Court of India in Nandini Satpathy Vs. P.L. Dani held that the accused Person cannot be forced to answer questions merely because the answers thereto are not implicative when viewed in isolation and confined to that particular case. A bench comprising of Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, Jaswant Singh and V .D. Tulzapurkar observed that he is entitled to keep his mouth shut if the answer sought has a reasonable prospect of exposing him to guilt in some other accusation actual or imminent, even though the investigation under way is not with reference to that. In determining the incriminatory character of an answer, the accused is entitled to consider and the Court while adjudging will take note of the setting, the totality of circumstances, the equation, personal and social which have a bearing on making an answer substantially innocent but in effect guilty in import. However, fanciful claims, unreasonable apprehensions, and vague possibilities cannot be the hiding ground for a

Debtor cannot dictate the manner in which the debt is to be recovered

SARFAESI Act; Tom Thomas Vs. State Bank of India Overseas Branch, Willington Island [Kerala High Court, 30-11-2016] Contents Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 128. Surety’s liability 140. Rights of surety on payment or performance 141. Surety’s right to benefit of creditor’s securities Bank of Bihar v. Damodar Prasad, AIR 1969 SC 297 Wright v. Simpson, (1802)6 Ves Jun 714 Union Bank of India v. Manku Narayanan, AIR 1987 SC 1978 State of Bank of India v. M/s. Indexport Registered, AIR 1992 SC 1740 Jagannath Ganeshram Agarwala v. Shivnarayan Bhagirath, AIR 1940 Bom. 247 A.P. State Financial Corporation v. M/s. Gar Re-rolling Mills, AIR 1994 SC 2151 Industrial Investment Bank of India Ltd. v. Biswanath Jhunjhunwala, (2009) 9 SCC 478 United Bank of India v. Satyawati Tondon and Others, (2010) 8 SCC 110 Ram Kishan v. State of U.P., (2012 11 SCC 511 Central Bank of India v. Vimla, (2015) 7 SCC 337 1. Applicat