Valuation of a suit property for the purpose of jurisdiction is different from valuation for the purpose of Court fees

Sep
1
2017


The Supreme Court in J. Vasanthi and Ors. Vs.  N. Ramani Kanthammal (D) Rep. by L.Rs. and Ors. Civil Appeal No. 3396 of 2017 on 10.08.2017 stated that proper valuation of a suit property stands on a different footing than applicability of a particular provision of an Act under which court fee is payable.




Essentials of mortgage by conditional sale

Sep
1
2017


The Supreme Court in the matter of Vithal Tukaram Kadam vs Vamanrao Sawalaram Bhosale decided on 9 August, 2017 Civil Appeal Nos. 7245-7246 OF 2011 summarised the essentials of an agreement, to qualify as a mortgage by conditional sale. An ostensible sale with transfer of possession and ownership, but containing a clause for re-conveyance in accordance with Section 58 (c ) of the Act, will clothe the agreement as a mortgage by conditional sale.




Powers of Police under Section 498A IPC curtailed

Aug
10
2017


The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of UP, Criminal appeal no. 1265 of 2017, decided on 27th July, 2017 inter-alia gave the following guidelines in regard to registration of FIR under Section 498A IPC:

-Complaints under Section 498A and other connected offences may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area. Such designations may be made within one month from today.




Power of Court in revision jurisdiction is limited

Aug
10
2017

Difference between Mortgage by conditional sale and Sale with a condition to repurchase

Aug
10
2017


The Supreme Court of India in the matter of Bibi Fatima vs. M. Ahamed Hussain, Civil Appeal no. 7023/2012, decided on 1st August, 2017 opined on the question that whether a transaction is a mortgage by conditional sale or a sale with a condition of re-purchase and stated the method of gathering the underlying difference between the same. The Apex court held that the question has to be decided on the basis of interpretation of the document itself. The intention of the parties is a determining factor and the document.




Sale of an immovable property can only be made by Registered instruments

Jul
31
2017


The Supreme Court in the matter of The Greater Bombay Co-operative Bank Limited vs. Nagraj Ganeshmal Jain decided on 26th July, 2017, being Civil Appeal Nos. 009777-009778 of 2017 has reiterated yet again that immoveable property can be transferred only by a Registered document. There can be no transfer of any right, title or interest in any immoveable property except by way of a registered document. An agreement to sell which is not a registered deed of conveyance would not meet the requirements of Section 54 and 55 of the Transfer of Property Act.




Eviction only when property sublet without the permission of the landlord.

Jul
31
2017


The Supreme Court in the matter Bhairon Sahai (D) vs. Bishamber Dayal (D) decided on 18th July, 2017, while dealing with a petition under Section 14(1)(b) of Delhi Rent Control Act 1958 has held that Eviction on the grounds of subletting can be sought by a landlord only where the tenant sublets, assigns or otherwise parts with possession without his consent. Parting with the possession of the premises without consent of the landlord was sufficient for eviction of the tenant without getting into the question of sub-letting or assignment.




Court auction sale cannot be set aside just for asking

May
11
2017


The Supreme Court Chilamkurti Bala Subrahmanyam
vs. Samanthapudi Vijaya Lakshmi; Civil Appeal No. 5988 of 2007 has held that for setting aside a court auction sale a charge of fraud or material irregularity under Order 21 Rule 90 must be specifically made with sufficient particulars.  Before a sale can be set aside merely establishing a material irregularity or fraud will not do.



Tags: 

Magistrates have to be vigilant before issuing summons or taking cognizance of an offence

May
2
2017


Supreme Court in the matter of Mahender Singh Dhoni Vs. Yerraguntla Shyamsundar; Transfer Petition (Criminal) no. 23 of 2016 cautioned the magistrates who have been conferred with the power of taking cognizance and issuing summons are required to carefully scrutinize whether the allegations made in the complaint meet the basic ingredients of the offence; whether the concept of territorial jurisdiction is satisfied; and whether the accused is really required to be summoned.




Complaints by a spouse to public authorities do not per se constitute Cruelty

May
2
2017


Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Talreja Vs Kavita Talreja; Civil Appeal no. 10719/2013 held that mere filing of complaints against the spouse is not cruelty, if there are justifiable reasons to file the Complaint. Merely because no action is taken on the complaint or after trial the accused is acquitted may not be a ground to treat such accusations of the wife as cruelty within the meaning of Hindu Marriage Act 1955.




Parties by an Agreement can confer jurisdiction upon a Court in Arbitration matters

May
2
2017


Supreme Court in the matter of Indus Mobile Vs. Datawind Innovations; Civil appeal no. 5370-5371/2017 in a landmark judgment has modified the understanding of law with regard to jurisdiction of Court. Age old law that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court by an agreement between the parties is no longer applicable to arbitration proceedings.




Continuance in service for long time no right to seek regularisation

Mar
17
2017


Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary to Govt Vs. A Singamuthu Civil Appeal no. 3770/2017 decided on 7th March, 2017 held Part-time or casual employment is meant to serve the exigencies of administration. It is a settled principle of law that continuance in service for long period on part-time or temporary basis confers no right to seek regularisation in service. The person who is engaged on temporary or casual basis is well aware of the nature of his employment and he consciously accepted the same at the time of seeking employment.



Tags: 

Trust not entitled to invoke jurisdiction of Consumer Courts

Mar
17
2017


Supreme Court in the matter of Pratibha Pratisthan Vs Manager, Canara Bank; Civil Appeal no. 3560/2008 vide judgement dated 7th March, 2017 held A reading of the definition of the words 'complaint', 'complainant' and 'consumer' makes it clear that a Trust cannot invoke the provisions of the Act in respect of any allegation on the basis of which a complaint could be made. 




Litigants abusing the process of law should be dealt with harshly

Mar
17
2017


Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dnyandeo Sabaji Naik Vs Pradnya Prakash Khadekar; SLP(C) no. 25331-33 of 2015 vide judgement dated 1st March, 2017 held that this Court must view with disfavour any attempt by a litigant to abuse the process. The sanctity of the judicial process will be seriously eroded if such attempts are not dealt with firmly. A litigant who takes liberties with the truth or with the procedures of the Court should be left in no doubt about the consequences to follow.




After acquisition of land, an allottee cannot be taken as necessary or proper party #legalupdates

Mar
2
2017


Acquisition may either be for a “public purpose” or for a company. When land has been acquired for public purpose, land vests in State after the Collector has made an award and the possession is taken. Once the land vests in State, acquisition is complete. An allottee from the State is not concerned with the process of acquisition. State may transfer land by public auction or by allotment at any price with which the person whose land is acquired has no concern. The fact that Government chooses to determine the allotment price with reference to compensation price determined by the Court does not provide any locus to an allottee to contest the claim for enhancement of compensation. Post-acquisition, an allottee cannot be treated at par with beneficiary for whom the land was acquired and therefore is neither necessary nor a proper party in award proceedings.

Satish Kumar Gupta v. State of Haryana & Ors. 21.02.2017 Civil Appeal Nos. 1587-1636 Of 2017




Relief u/s Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act is discretionary #legalupdates

Mar
2
2017


In a case decided by Supreme Court, the Court has held that Section 20(1) of Specific Relief Act, 1963 indicates that, jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary. Yet, discretion of Court is not arbitrary but is “sound and reasonable”, to be “guided by judicial principles”. Sub-section 2 of Section 20 of Act contains a stipulation of those cases where the court may exercise its discretion not to grant specific performance.

Material placed on record indicates that the terms of contract, conduct of parties at time of entering into agreement and circumstances under which contract was entered into gave Plaintiff an unfair advantage over defendants. These circumstances make it inequitable to enforce specific performance.

Supreme Court Jayakantham & Others v. Abaykumar Civil Appeal No. 3049 of 2017 21.02.2017 




Custody of minor child to be determined by the welfare of the minor #indianlaws

Feb
19
2017


The Supreme Court in the matter titled as Vivek Singh Vs. Romani Singh, Civil Appeal no. 3962/2016 decided on 13th February, 2017 was determining the issue of custody of a minor child. The Court reiterated the old principle that welfare of the minor child is the first and paramount consideration and in order to determine child custody, the jurisdiction exercised by the Court rests on its own inherent equality powers where the Court acts as 'Parens Patriae'.




Industrial lease deed to be renewed as per the terms of lease #indianlaws

Feb
19
2017


The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs. MESCO Kalinga Steel Limited; Civil Appeal no. 2545/2017, decided on 14th February, 2017 held that renewal of lease is a privilege and if a tenant wishes to claim the privilege, he must do so strictly within the time limited for the purpose. Where however, there is no time limit, an application may be made within a reasonable time.




What is "Permanent disability" in Motor Accident cases #indianlaws

Feb
13
2017


Supreme Court in the matter of Sandeep Khanuja Vs. Atul Dande; Civil Appeal no. 1329/2017 decided on 2nd Feb, 2017 held that the crucial factor which has to be taken into consideration, in a motor accident case, is to assess as to whether the permanent disability has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the injured.




Courts can consider subsequent events in adjudication of disputes #indianlaws

Feb
13
2017


The Supreme Court in the matter of Nidhi Vs Ram Kirpal Sharma Civil Appeal no. 1008 of 2017 decided on 2nd Feb, 2017 that ordinarily, rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of institution of the suit. However, the court has power to take note of the subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly.



Tags: 

Judicial interference in commercial matters of the government not warranted unless illegal/irrational #legalupdates

Jan
11
2017


Supreme Court has cautioned that in commercial matters, judicial interference is warranted only when an administrative action of the Government is illegal, irrational or the process through which such action is taken is beyond procedural propriety. A court of law ought to limit itself in only assessing infirmities in “decisions making process” on touchstone of reasonableness and rationality and should ensure that it is not arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India.




Allegation of fraud without proof does not render a decree fraudulent #legalupdates

Jan
10
2017


When there is an allegation of fraud by non-disclosure of necessary and relevant facts or concealment of material facts, it must be inquired into. It is only after evidence is led coupled with intent to deceive that a conclusion of fraud could be arrived at. A mere concealment or non-disclosure without intent to deceive or a bald allegation of fraud without proof and intent to deceive would not render a decree obtained by a party as fraudulent.




HC does not have the power to punish for contempt of Supreme Court #legalupdates

Jan
10
2017


There is, nothing in Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 or in Article 215 of Constitution which can be said to empower High Court to initiate proceedings suo-motu or otherwise for contempt of a superior Court like the Supreme Court of India. As a matter of fact, Supreme Court under Article 129 and High Court under Article 215 of Constitution are both declared to be Courts of Record. One of recognised attributes of a Court of record is power to punish for its contempt and contempt of courts subordinate to it. Use of expression "including" in said provisions is explanatory in character.




Parties to an arbitration agreement are free to decide both procedural and substantive law #indianlaws

Jan
1
2017


Parties (to the contract) in the present case intended to provide for two opportunities at resolving their disputes or differences. First was a settlement by arbitration in India ('arbitration result') and second was by arbitration in London, with intention to treat the second one as an appeal against 'arbitration result' in India. The Apex Court had to decide whether this was permissible under the Arbitration & Conciliation Act




Court cannot decide disputed questions of fact under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, #indianlaws

Dec
14
2016


The Supreme Court has held that the bank guarantee is an independent contract between the guarantor-bank and the guarantee-appellant. The guarantee is unconditional. Though the performance guarantee is against the breach by the lead promoter, viz., the first Respondent, but between the bank and the Appellant, the specific condition incorporated in the bank guarantee is that the decision of the Appellant as to the breach is binding on the bank.




Cheque given as ‘Security’ is covered within the ambit of Section 138 of N.I Act #indianlaws

Dec
14
2016


The Supreme Court in a judgment delivered in September has held that the dishonour of a post-dated cheque given for repayment of loan installment which is also described as "security" in the loan agreement is covered by Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Contention of the Appellant in support of his case was that the cheques were given by way of security as mentioned in the agreement and that on the date the cheques were issued, no debt or liability was due.




True scope and ambit of the term Judgment #indianlaws

Jun
6
2016


Every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a judgment but only those orders would be judgments which decide matters of moment or affect vital and valuable rights of the parties and which work serious injustice to the party concerned. Similarly, orders passed by the Trial Judge deciding question of admissibility or relevancy of a document also cannot be treated as judgments because the grievance on this score can be corrected by the appellate court in appeal against the final judgment.




Apex Court interprets applicability of Sector 3 of the Sports Act, 2007 #indianlaws

Jun
6
2016


Section 3(1), mandates sharing of live broadcasting signals with Prasar Bharati has to be 'without its advertisements'. Exception is, however, made in sub-section (2) of Section 3 which enables the broadcasting service provider to even share the contents along with advertisements, but subject to the condition that there has to be a sharing of revenue in the proportion prescribed in sub-section (2) of Section 3. When live broadcasting signal is shared containing advertisements, those advertisements have much larger viewership because of its telecast/broadcast on Prasar Bharati. The benefit of advertisement in such a case would accrue to those who have booked the advertisements and the service provider, in such an eventuality would definitely be in a position to charge much more from the advertisers. The rates of advertisement go up when circulation thereof is enhanced. 




Order of the Magistrate refusing to take cognizance revisable by Sessions Court #indianlaws

Jun
6
2016


The order of the Magistrate refusing to take cognizance is revisable. This power of revision can be exercised by the superior Court, which in this case, will be the Court of Sessions itself, either on the revision petition that can be filed by the aggrieved party or even suo moto by the revisional Court itself. The Court of Sessions is, thus, not powerless to pass an order in its revisionary jurisdiction. 




Mere disregard of some code or procedure is not enough to establish guilt under Prevention of Corruption Act #indianlaws

Jun
6
2016


Where the attempt of the prosecution was to bring the case within the fold of clause (ii) alleging that he misused his official position in issuing the certificate utterly fails as it is not even alleged in the chargesheet and not even iota of evidence is led as to what kind of pecuniary advantage was obtained by the appellant in issuing the said letter, prosecution under Prevention of Corruption Act is not warranted.

Mere disregard of relevant provisions of some Code as well as ordinary norms of procedural behaviour of government officials and contractors, without conclusively establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the officials and contractors concerned, may give rise to a strong suspicion but that cannot be held to establish the guilt of the accused








© 2010-15