Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court in SEENI NAINAR MOHAMMED Vs STATE REP. BY DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE has set aside conviction of accused of murdering a Hindu Munnani Activist in Madurai. The Bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice RF Nariman held that the sanction order was illegal and hence the criminal proceedings for prosecution under the TADA Act are vitiated entirely and that TADA court grossly erred in taking cognizance of the case. The Bench observed that the Court convicted the accused under the TADA Act on the basis of confession of A-6 and not on the basis of any other material. “Confessions of A-1 and A-6 are involuntary as they were taken in the immediate custody of high security of CBI and a non-voluntary confession cannot form the basis of conviction”, the Bench said.

The Supreme Court, in the case of Mahendra Singh Dhoni vs Yerraguntla Shyamsundar, has held that not every act or attempt to insult religion or the religious beliefs of a class of citizens would be penalised under Section 295-A of the Indian Penal Code. Only malicious or deliberate acts, or attempts, undertaken with the intention of outraging the religious beliefs of a class of citizens would be penalised.

The Supreme Court, in Kalyan Dey Chowdhury vs Rita Dey Chowdhury, has upheld a Calcutta High Court observation, which by relying on a judgment of the apex court, had held that 25 per cent of the husband’s net salary would be just and proper to be awarded as maintenance to the wife. The high court, in the instant case, observing that the net salary of the husband was Rs. 95,000 per month, enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs. 23,000 per month. A bench comprising Justice R Banumathi and Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar observed that the amount of permanent alimony awarded to the wife must be befitting the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay maintenance and it is always dependent on the factual situation of the case and the court would be justified in moulding the claim for maintenance passed on various factors. The court also upheld the observation made by the high court, referring to Dr Kulbhushan Kumar vs Raj Kumari and Anr, wherein it held that 25 per

Court cannot be expected to surrender its own judgment and delegate its authority to a third person, however great, the Supreme Court, in Machindra vs Sajjan Galpha Rankhamb, has observed while upholding a high court order which has set aside conviction of accused in a murder case. In the instant case, in the post-mortem report, cause of injuries was not stated nor was any opinion formed in that regard. In this context, a bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose observed that an expert’s opinion should be demonstrative and supported by convincing reasons. Affirming the high court order which had set aside the trial court order of conviction, the bench said if the report of an expert is slipshod and inadequate or cryptic and information on similarities or dissimilarities is not available in the report of an expert, then his opinion is of no value. Such opinions are often of no use to the court and often lead to the breaking of very important links of prosecution evidence w

Sri Srinivasaiah Vs. H.R. Channabasappa - Supreme Court The original plaintiff – M.N. Channabasappa was the owner of the suit land (described in detail in schedule to the plaint). He fell in need of money in 1969. He, therefore, approached the original defendant No.1 – B.M. Narayana Shetty and requested him to give some money to overcome the financial crisis faced by him during that time. Defendant No.1 agreed and accordingly gave Rs.1500/- to the plaintiff by way of loan. In order to secure the repayment, the plaintiff on request made by defendant No.1 executed a document on 28.07.1969 (Ex-P-1) in favour of defendant No.1 and got the same registered with the sub-Registrar, Kanakpura. Defendant No.1 was also placed in possession of the suit property pursuant to the document. On 30.06.1987, the plaintiff sent a legal notice to defendant No.1 and offered to repay Rs.1500/- to him with a further request to redeem the suit land in his favour in terms of the conditions of Ex. P-1. T

The Supreme Court, in Union of India vs M/S Simplex Infrastructures, has reiterated that intra-court Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent of High Court at Calcutta is not maintainable against an order passed by the single judge on an application for condonation of delay filed along with the petition for setting aside an arbitration award. A division bench of Calcutta High Court, holding that intra-court appeal is maintainable against single judge order condoning the delay, had reversed the order by invoking its jurisdiction under Letters Patent Appeal. Referring to the decision in Fuerst Day Lawson Limited vs Jindal Exports Limited, the bench comprising Justice Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar held that the remedy of Letters Patent Appeal against that decision is unavailable and the question as to whether the single judge had rightly exercised the discretion or otherwise could be assailed before the apex court by way of special leave petition. “Even if

The Supreme Court, in a brief order, has observed that an FIR can be quashed in part against some accused against whom no cognizable offence is made out. The apex court bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice RF Nariman, in Lovely Salhotra vs State, set aside a Delhi High Court order and observed that the court could not refuse to quash FIR only on the ground that the investigation against co-accused is still pending. The petitioners before the high court had sought to quash the complaint on the ground that on a reading of the FIR, no offence was made out against the petitioners. Refusing to quash the case, the Delhi High Court had observed: “It cannot be said that on a reading of the FIR, prima facie, no cognizable offence is made out against the petitioners. Even otherwise, the FIR cannot be quashed at this stage of investigation and that too in part, since there are other accused including accused no.1 Madhvi Khurana against whom the case is under investigati

The Supreme Court, in Fazar Ali vs State of Assam, has held that there is no inconsistency in chargesheeting and convicting persons who have not been named along with the other accused in the First Information Report. In a criminal appeal before the apex court, one of the contentions put forth on behalf of convicts was that since the names of seven other accused were not disclosed in the FIR, they could not have been chargesheeted. A bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan observed that the FIR clearly mentioned that 12 persons were accused and the FIR, from the very beginning, claimed that apart from five names mentioned, seven others were also accused.

The Supreme Court in Shamshad Mehboob Ali Vs. Mohamed Mehboob Ali,  while referring to various other decisions of the Apex court stated that :- Grant or refusal of an injunction in a civil suit is the most important stage in the civil trial. Due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the judicial officers and judges while granting or refusing injunction. In most cases, the fate of the case is decided by grant or refusal of an injunction. Experience has shown that once an injunction is granted, getting it vacated would become a nightmare for the Defendant. In order to grant or refuse injunction, the judicial officer or the judge must carefully examine the entire pleadings and documents with utmost care and seriousness. The safe and better course is to give short notice on injunction application and pass an appropriate order after hearing both the sides. In case of grave urgency, if it becomes imperative to grant an ex-parte ad interim injunction, it should be g

The Supreme Court, in Brijendra Singh vs State of Rajasthan, has observed that the degree of satisfaction to exercise power under Section 319 CrPC to summon persons not arraigned as accused is more than the degree warranted at the time of framing of the charges against others in respect of whom charge sheet was filed. A bench headed by Justice AK Sikri observed that the prima facie opinion which is to be formed for exercising this power under Section 319 CrPC requires stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. In the instant case, some persons, who were named in the FIR, were not arraigned as accused in the charge sheet since the investigating officer found that they were in Jaipur city when the incident took place in Kanaur. During their examination in chief, the complainants reiterated the statements they made to the police and on that basis, the trial court, exercising its powers under Section 319 CrPC, summoned these persons. The high court also rejected their p

Rejecting the plea of an accused facing trial to produce certain pages of police diary obtained by him through RTI for the purpose of contradicting the police officer, the Supreme Court in Balakram vs State of Uttarakhand, has reiterated that the accused cannot claim unfettered right to inspect the case diary. The three-judge bench headed by Justice Dipak Misra held that right of the accused to cross-examine the police officer with reference to the entries in the police diary is very much limited in extent, and even that limited scope arises only when the court uses the entries to contradict the police officer or when the police officer uses it for refreshing his memory. The High Court of Uttarakhand had allowed an accused’s plea to use the case diary to contradict the police. This application was filed by the accused after the completion of examination in the police officer. Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/adding-additional-accused-s-319-crpc-strong-evidence-complicity-re

The Bombay High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered for offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 467, 471 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, even though the complainant and the respondents claimed to have “settled matters amicably”. A bench of Justice SC Dharmadhikari and Justice PD Naik was hearing a writ petition filed by one Anita Dias seeking quashing of FIR filed against her by Manoj Yeole, a resident of Baner, Pune. Anita’s lawyer V. Kamble had placed reliance on an affidavit wherein Yeole had stated that he had no objection if his FIR dated August 2, 2012, against Anita was quashed. In the said affidavit, Yeole says all the misunderstandings had been cleared and that he wished to withdraw the criminal complaint filed by him. When asked about the contents of the affidavit, complainant Yeole was described as being ‘incoherent’ and his answers were not consistent with his statement in the affidavit against some of the accused. He, instead, stated that nothing c

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Rampali vs The State Govt of NCT of Delhi, has reiterated that nomination is not a Will in law and in the absence of any Will, only legal heirs (as per the Hindu Succession Act) shall be entitled to inherit the property of the deceased. In the present case, an appeal was filed to revoke the trial court’s order of dismissal of Rampali’s (deceased’s sister) succession certificate. Justice Valmiki J Mehta noted that the trial court had rightly awarded the succession certificate to the husband and daughter of Kamla Devi (the deceased), who were her legal heirs according to the Hindu Succession Act. The revocation was prayed for on the grounds that Kamla Devi had not been residing with her husband and daughter for over 35 years and that Rampali was shown to be her nominee in her government employment records. The opinion of the trial court noting that the revocation was right in light of Section 15(1)(a) of the Hindu Succession Act, was upheld by t

Setting aside a Kerala High Court order, the Supreme Court, in Valiyavalappil Sarojakshan vs Sumalsankar Gaikevada, has held that merely because a landlord has taken possession on the basis of an order for eviction granted on one ground, that does not mean that the surviving grounds have become non-est. The landlord had approached the Rent Control Court seeking eviction of tenant under Section 11(4) (iii) and Section 11(4) (iv) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965. The Rent Control Court allowed the petitions under Sections 11(4) (iv) on the ground of requirement for demolition and reconstruction, while declining eviction on the ground of tenant’s acquisition of alternate accommodation. The landlord, aggrieved by the Rent Control Court declining eviction under Section 11(4) (iii), approached the appellate authority. However, he also took possession of the buildings on the strength of order passed by the Rent Control Court on the other ground. Later,

Setting aside a judgment of Bombay High Court which had held that it is not necessary for a ‘defendant’ to first admit the ownership of the ‘plaintiff’ before raising a plea of adverse possession, the Supreme Court, in Dagadabai vs Abbas, has held that a person claiming adverse possession must necessarily first admit the ownership of the true owner over the property to the knowledge of the true owner. A bench comprising Justice RK Agrawal and Justice AM Sapre also observed that the true owner has to be made a party to the suit to enable the court to decide the plea of adverse possession between the two rival claimants. In the instant case, the defendant had not admitted the plaintiff’s ownership over the suit land, but the high court had observed that such admission is not necessary. But the apex court, on appeal, observed that the issue of adverse possession could not have been tried successfully at the instance of the defendant as against the plaintiff. The court also observed

An imprisoned developer wanted to sell property to the willing buyers by executing a registered sale deed. Several prayers were made before the jail authority regarding the same but it did not yield any result. The prisoner’s wife then approached the Calcutta High Court. On hearing the matter, Justice Joymalya Bagchi maintained – “Right to carry on trade and profession including right to convey property in course of such business is an essential fundamental right enshrined under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India and the same do not stand eclipsed by the continuing incarceration of a prisoner. Hence, I am of the opinion that incarceration of the husband of the petitioner shall not disentitle him from executing sale deeds to convey flats in favour of intending purchasers in accordance with law.” The judge further interpreted prison as being the temporary home of the inmate- “When a prisoner is incarcerated in a correctional home, it is to be deemed that the priso

The Supreme Court in Manti Devi vs. Kishun Sah, has held that no decree can be reversed or substantially varied in appeal or revision on account of misjoinder or nonjoinder of parties. In the instant case, the High Court had found that the plaintiffs had jointly petitioned to be the landlord and it is found that they are not “landlord” for the purposes of the suit in question, then jointly they have no causes of action. Setting aside the decree, the High Court further held that it materially affects the merit of the case and is accordingly not saved by Section 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Central Information Commission, in the case of Balendra Kumar vs Ministry of Labour and Employment, held that when information is being sought by the applicant, non-traceability of the file cannot be used as an excuse to deny the information sought. The complainant had sought details regarding certain specified files; however, the same was denied to him by the CIPO, on account of the file being missing. It was the claim of the respondent authorities that the file could not be traced despite their best efforts.

The Supreme Court, in Kinnari Mullick vs. Ghanshyam Das Damani, has held that Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, does not empower the court to relegate the parties before the Arbitral Tribunal after having set aside the arbitral award in question. A three judge bench of the apex court headed by Justice Dipak Misra held that the limited discretion available to the court under Section 34(4) can be exercised only upon a written application made in that behalf by a party to the arbitration proceedings and the court cannot exercise this limited power of deferring the proceedings before it suo motu. In the instant case, a division bench of the Calcutta High Court, while setting aside the award in question, also directed, without there being any application of either parties, to send back the award to the Arbitral Tribunal for assigning reasons in support of the award. The apex court bench observed that the respondent did not make such a request before the sing

The Supreme Court, in Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad, vs Equinox Solution Pvt Ltd, has held that Section 50 (2) of the Income Tax Act will not apply to a case where the entire running business with assets and liabilities is sold by the assessee in one go, as such sale cannot be considered as “short-term capital assets”. Dismissing the Revenue’s appeal against a Gujarat High Court ruling, the bench held that provisions of Section 50 (2) of the Act would apply to a case where the assessee transfers one or more block of assets, which he was using in running of his business, and not when the entire business, as a running concern, is sold by the assessee. While filing IT returns, the assessee had claimed deduction under Section 48 (2) of the Act, as it stood then, by treating the sale to be in the nature of “slump sale” of the going concern being in the nature of long term capital gain in the hands of the assessee. According to the assessing officer, the case of the assess

Supreme Court of India has observed that freedom of expression includes right to be informed and right to know and feeling of protection of expansive connectivity. A three Judge Bench of Dipak Misra, AM Khanwilkar and Mohan Shantanagoudar made the above observation in Sabu Mathew George Vs Union of India which is filed for the proper implementation of Pre-Natal Diagnostics Technique (PNDT) Act and ban the online sex determination advertisements flooded the internet which is  violative of Pre-Natal Diagnostics Technique (PNDT) Act. The Court had already given many directions to the search engines like google and yahoo to take effective steps to stop the online ads.

In this instant matter, the plaintiff is a company that carries on business in retail sale of fabrics and other items. It issued refund vouchers to its customers and made arrangement for the same with the defendant bank on 14.1.1984. On 13.02.1997, the defendant bank asked the plaintiff to stop issuing refund vouchers. However, the defendant arbitrarily debited plaintiff’s account by Rs. 45,55,257.45. The plaintiff approached consumer courts, claiming that the bank was deficient in providing services. Allegations of deficiency of services against banks were not proved either before the state or national consumer redressal forum. Hence, the present suit was instituted before the high court for injunction directing the defendant to transfer wrongly debited sum. The primary question for consideration in this matter was whether state/national forums are courts and whether the decision or finding before the various fora under the said Act would attract the principles of res judi

The Supreme Court, in Indus Mobile Distribution Private Limited vs Datawind Innovations Private Limited, has held that when there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause in an arbitration agreement stating that the courts at a particular place alone would have jurisdiction in respect of disputes arising under the agreement, it would oust all other courts’ jurisdiction in the matter, even in a case where no part of cause of action arises at that place. In the instant case, the arbitration agreement had fixed the seat of arbitration in Mumbai, and there was a clause stating that the courts at Mumbai alone would have jurisdiction in respect of disputes arising under the agreement. A Section 9 petition was filed before the Delhi High Court contending that no part of the cause of action arose in Mumbai, only the courts of three territories could have jurisdiction in the matter, namely, Delhi and Chennai (from and to where goods were supplied), and Amritsar (which is the registered office of

The Supreme Court, in Steel Authority of India Ltd vs Designated Authority, Directorate General Of Anti-Dumping & Allied Duties & Ors, has observed that the following conditions must be satisfied before admitting an appeal under Section 130 E (b) of the Customs Act against an order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT): 1) The question raised or arising must have a direct and/or proximate nexus to the question of determination of the applicable rate of duty or to the determination of the value of the goods for the purposes of assessment of duty. This is a sine qua non for the admission of the appeal before this Court under Section 130 E (b) of the Act. 2) The question raised must involve a substantial question of law, which has not been answered or, on which, there is a conflict of decisions necessitating a resolution. 3) If the tribunal, on consideration of the material and relevant facts, had arrived at a conclusion which is a possible concl

In Cruz City 1 Mauritius Holdings v. Unitech Limited, Justice Vibhu Bakhru held that foreign arbitral award can be enforced in India pertaining to put options, exit at assured return, and guarantee arrangements and the provisions of FEMA and related regulations cannot be claimed as defense by Indian parties. In this matter, an investor Cruz City (Mauritius Company) sought to enforce a foreign arbitral award against Unitech (an Indian company) and its wholly owned subsidiary Burley Holdings Ltd.. (a Mauritius company).

Bank Guarantee; Adhunik Power and Natural Resources Limited Vs. Central Coalfields Limited [Jharkhand High Court, 11-04-2017]  Case Law Bank Guarantee Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary vide judgment dated 24.9.2014,reported in 2014(9) SCC 614 M/s Gangotri Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India & others reported in 2016 SCC Online SC 415 Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar & others reported in 1999(8) SCC 436 M/s Adani Agri Fresh Ltd. v. Mahaboob Sharif & others reported in 2015 SSC Online 1302 Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. M/s Jindal Drilling and Industries Limited reported in 2015-(ARI)-GJX-0034-BOM. Balwant Rai Saluja and another v. Air India Limited and others reported in 2014(9) SCC 407 Indowind Energy Limited v. Wescare India Limited and another reported in 2010(5) SCC 306 Vinitec Electronics Private Ltd. v. HCL Infosystems Ltd. reported in 2008 (1) SCC 544 National Highways Authority of India Vrs. Ganga Enterprises and another re