Legal News & Views

In Namboothiri Trust Vs. Government, a student secures admission in a college, completes the first year, applies to the University for inter-college transfer and secures it; the college compels the student to pay liquidated damages for the loss of fee it suffers because of the student’s leaving the college mid-course. The Hon'ble Kerala High Court held that the college is justified in demanding and collecting the liquidated damages from the student.

In Sankara Narayanan, President and Chief Operating Officer, Asianet Satellite Communications Limited Vs. Subbiah IAS, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court on deciding whether Final Report filed by the Investigation Officer can be substituted by another Final Report under Section 173 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 held that court below wanted to get the Final Report substituted by another Final Report, which course is not contemplated under any of the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure. This is a case wherein the Final Report was not returned for curing defects, or for proper presentation. The court below “remitted the final report” which is unknown to legal procedure.

In Kali Ammal Vs. Valliyammal, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court, while referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Uttam v. Saubhag Singh and others, (2016), held that a person could have claimed a right by birth only in respect of ancestral property in the hands of his father and the right claimable was only per stripes – No coparcener could have ever claimed a right by birth over the entire joint family properties on per capita basis. The Hon'ble court also explained that :- Rights of coparceners can be enlisted as follows: (1) Right by birth (2) Right by survivorship (3) Right to partition (4) Right to joint possession and enjoyment (5) Right of alienation (6) Right to make selfacquisitions (7) Right to restrain unauthorised acts (8) Right to accounts

In Bihar Rajya Bhumi Vikas Bank Vs. State of Bihar, the following questions were raised before the Hon'ble Patna High Court :- i) If the principal civil Court is a tribunal, whether a writ of certiorari can be issued and if so, under what circumstances? ii) Whether the provisions of Section 34(5) are mandatory or directory? iii) Whether, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the principal civil Court acts as a Civil Court of ordinary jurisdiction or as a mere Court or as a tribunal? And the Hon'ble court held that :- a) Principal civil court, while exercising powers under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, is not a Court of civil judicature; rather, it only a tribunal with the trappings of Court. b) Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 – Section 34 (5) – The notice, as prescribed by Section 34 of the 1996 Act, is mandatory before proceeding with the filing of an application under Sectio

In Dr. Jitendra Gupta Vs. State of Bihar, the hon'ble Patna High Court held that In India, the courts would not, ordinarily, quash a criminal proceeding merely because of the reason that at the end of the trial, conviction of the person, facing the trial, appears impossible on account of insufficiency of material. This restriction is, however, not a restriction of universal application. Hence, in a given case, it is possible to quash a criminal proceeding if, it is, on the basis of the materials available, reasonable to reach a conclusion that at the end of the trial, the accused would have to be acquitted.

In Oil India Limited vs Essar Oil Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while quashing the appeal of Oil India to set aside the arbitration award opined that mere delay by the arbitral tribunal to pronounce its award is no ground to set it aside, the Delhi High Court stated, dismissing an appeal of Oil India Ltd (OIL) against an award by a three-member panel in favour of Essar Oil Ltd. The high court said a party can raise the issue only if it suffered prejudice by the delay. In this case, there was a delay of three years, but OIL could not demand quashing of the award as it had failed to assert its right under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act.

If the defaulting borrowers are given an opportunity to settle the dues according to an existing policy, it can not be changed later to their disadvantage, the Supreme Court ruled in the case, Devidayal Castings Ltd vs Haryana Financial Corporation. In this case, two borrowing firms did not repay the loans and therefore they were declared non-performing assets. In 2005, the corporation promulgated a policy whereby borrowers were given an option to settle their dues on the basis of the principal amount of the out standing in the loan accounts as on the date on which the accounts were de clared as NPA. The two firms were given the offer and asked to de posit 10 per cent of the dues as precondition for consideration of their cases. The borrowers accepted the offer. However, in 2015, the corporation changed the policy and according to the new one, where the value of the securities was more than the settlement amount, the corporation should resort to the sale of the secured prop er ties

The Supreme Court in Nagarpalika Thakurdwara vs. Khalil Ahmed & Ors, has held that, provisions of Section 102 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be invoked if the subject matter of the suit is anything other than recovery of money or something more than recovery of money. Section 102 CPC states that no second appeal shall lie from any decree, when the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees.  In the instant case, the municipality had filed a suit to recover only a sum of Rs.11, 006.07 by way of tax from the respondents. The High Court dismissed the second appeal invoking Section 102 CPC. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/section-102-cpc-cannot-invoked-subject-matter-suit-involves-something-moreother-recovery-money-sc/

In Saroj Agarwalla (Dead) Thr. LR Abhishek Agrawalla Vs. Yasheel Jain, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that held that mere receipt of some benefits under the Will cannot confer a caveatable interest in a third party unless he claims interest in the estate of the deceased otherwise than by way of Will sought to be probated. But the conclusions of the Single Judge were upheld on the basis of claim of Malati that she was widow of the testator. The Division Bench came to hold that the issue whether Malati is really a lawful widow of the testator or not cannot be conclusively decided in the probate proceedings but once prima facie materials support her claim, the application filed for discharge of her caveat deserves dismissal. This view is founded on the reason furnished by Division Bench by pointing out that a judgment in the probate proceedings is a judgment in rem and, therefore, a person establishing prima facie interest in the estate of the testator should be permitted to maintain

The Supreme Court in Anurag Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttarakhand, has observed that courts, in exercise of judicial discretion, cannot give any direction contrary to the statute or rules made there under and it is to be exercised only when there are two or more possible lawful solutions. The Bench comprising Justice Shiva Kirti Singh and Justice L. Nageswara Rao made this observation while upholding a judgment of High Court of Uttarakhand, wherein it had issued a direction to restrict the selection of assistant prosecuting officers only to the number of posts that were advertised. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/courts-cant-exercise-judicial-discretion-statute-rules-sc/

The Supreme Court in Shyam Pal vs. Dayawati Besoya, has reiterated that courts can exercise discretion under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code to the benefit of prisoners in cases where the prosecution is based on a single transaction, no matter even if different complaints in relation thereto might have been filed. The Bench comprising Justice Dipak Mishra and Justice Amitava Roy reiterated the dictum laid down in V.K. Bansal vs. State of Haryana and Another and a recent decision in Benson vs. State of Kerala Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/courts-can-direct-subsequent-sentence-shall-run-concurrently-previous-sentence-sc/

The Supreme Court in Ashok Kumar vs. State of Bihar, has reiterated that the candidates who failed to raise any objection to a selection process were estopped from turning around and challenging the selection once they were declared unsuccessful. Selections made for promotion from Class IV posts to Class III posts in the district court of Muzaffarpur were quashed by a single bench of the Patna High Court on a writ petition by several unsuccessful candidates. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/participated-selection-process-without-protest-cant-challenge-later-sc/

The Supreme Court in Satya Pal Anand vs. State of M.P, has held that once the document is registered, it is not open to any authority, under the Registration Act, 1908, to cancel the registration. In the instant case, an application was moved by a person before the Sub-Registrar (Registration) calling upon him to cancel the registration of extinguishment deed executed by the Society cancelling an allotment of plot. Aggrieved by rejection of his application, on the ground that Sub Registrar has no jurisdiction to cancel the registration of a registered document in question, he approached Inspector General (Registration), but in vain. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/no-authority-can-cancel-registered-documents-sc/

The Supreme Court, in State of Punjab vs. Jagjit Singh has held that temporary employees would be entitled to draw wages at the minimum of the pay-scale (- at the lowest grade, in the regular pay-scale), extended to regular employees, holding the same post. Justice Jagdish Singh Khehar and Justice S.A. Bobde held that the principle of ‘equal pay for equal work’ would be applicable to all the concerned temporary employees, so as to vest in them the right to claim wages, at par with the minimum of the pay-scale of regularly engaged Government employees, holding the same post. The Bench was hearing an appeal against the High Court order which had held that temporary employees are not entitled to the minimum of the pay-scale, as was being paid to similarly placed regular employees. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/equal-pay-equal-work-temporary-employees-well-sc-read-judgment/

In Sweety Gupta Vs. Neety Gupta, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court while elaborating on the various procedures arising from non-delivery of summons and the resultant ex-parte order  held that - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 5 Rule 17 & 18 – Endorsement of the process server / postman – If no evidence is given with regard to service of summons, the fact that the postman or the process server reported refusal/non acceptance of the service would have to be accepted as correct. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 –Order 9 Rule 6 – Procedure when only plaintiff appears – When summons are duly served but the defendant chooses not to appear, the Court may make an order that the suit be heard ex parte. In case it is not proved that the summons are duly served, the Court is under an obligation to direct a second summons to be issued and served on the defendant. In the event of the defendant not having sufficient time to appear, the Court can postpone the hearing of the suit to a future date

The Supreme Court in Harbeer Singh Vs. Sheeshpal, has observed that delay in recording of statements of the prosecution witnesses under Section 161 CrPC., although those witnesses were or could be available for examination when the Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence or soon thereafter, would cast a doubt upon the prosecution case. A bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Amitava Roy made this observation while upholding a Rajasthan High Court judgment, which had acquitted the accused in a murder case. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/delay-recording-prosecution-witnesses-statements-can-fatal-prosecution-case-sc/

The Supreme Court in Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh, has held that the burden on the prosecution is only to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and not all doubts and the rule regarding the benefit of doubt does not warrant acquittal of the accused by resorting to surmises, conjectures or fanciful considerations. A bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Amitava Roy set aside an Allahabad High Court judgment which had acquitted the accused in a murder case and restored the conviction recorded by the trial court. Referring to State of U.P. vs. Krishna Gopal and Anr. and State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh, the court observed: “It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. However, the burden on the prosecution is only to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubt and not all doubts.” Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/prosecution-needs-establish-case-beyond-reasonable-d

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.

In Megha Insulation Private Limited and Ors. v. J.K. White Cement Work Gotan, the hon'ble Rajasthan high Court held that under provisions of Order V, Rule 9 CPC, unless proved contrary, service of notices sent properly addressed, prepaid and by registered post would be deemed to be proper service.

The Supreme Court with ‘immense pain’ has asked the high courts to keep in mind the established doctrine of restraint, while issuing writ of mandamus in tender/bidding matters. The court also observed that a writ court cannot sit in appeal over the financial consultant’s assessment. The bench comprising Justice Dipak Mishra and Justice Shiva Kirti Singh made this observation in an appeal (TANGEDCO vs. CSEPDI–Trishe Consortium) against a high court order which, on a writ petition filed by a bidder, directed the owners to consider representations submitted by the bidder and to take certain aspects into consideration. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/sc-reminds-hcs-doctrine-restraint-complex-fiscal-evaluation/

The Gujarat High Court has dismissed the writ application of a former branch manager of a Gramin Bank in Manishkumar Arjanbhai Patel v. Saurashtra Gramin Bank & two ors., who was removed from his service on the account of charges of misconduct and negligence in discharging his duties, stating that a delay, by itself, would not vitiate departmental inquiry as sometimes charges may be so serious that the issue of delay pales into insignificance. The decision taken by the court through Justice JB Pardiwala was arrived at after careful examination of the facts and after being assured that the procedure of inquiry was carried out in accordance with law. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/delay-wont-vitiate-departmental-inquiry-charges-serious-gujarat-hc/

The Supreme Court in Rajender Bansal & Ors. Vs. Bhuru (D), has held that a civil court would not cease to have jurisdiction to try a pending suit of eviction if the suit property came under the notified area during pendency of the suit. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/civil-court-power-try-pending-eviction-suits-suit-property-comes-notified-area-pendency-sc/

The Delhi High Court in Mange Ram Jain vs Jatinder Kumar Jain, has ruled that temporary disconnection of water supply does not constitute ‘mischief’. The court stated that the act does not confirm to the essential provisions defining the offence of ‘mischief’ under Section 425 IPC. The single judge bench of Justice Mukta Gupta quashed summons issued to the respondents and stated that, ‘one of the essential ingredients of the offence of “mischief” is ‘wrongful loss or damage to any person by causing destruction of any property or making a change which diminishes its value.’ The dispute between the parties was with regard to the dues towards the complainant which was an admitted fact and even on an erroneous calculation thereof temporary disconnection of the supply would not cause either destruction of the property or diminishing its value’. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/temporary-disconnection-water-supply-not-amount-mischief-delhi-hc/

A Full Bench of Kerala High Court in Firos Ali v. State of Kerala, has issued guidelines pertaining to filing of subsequent bail applications for same crime. The Bench comprising of Chief Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Justice Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan and Justice K.T. Sankaran clarified a few doubts that were raised in the principle that was laid down in a previous Supreme Court judgment in Shahzad Hasan Khan v. Ishtiaq Hasan Khan and followed through in subsequent cases. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/kerala-hc-full-bench-issues-guidelines-filing-subsequent-bail-applications-read-judgment/

Directing the State police to “learn a lesson” from the reported murder of a 24-year-old woman from Tirunelveli due to non registration of a complaint of abduction lodged by her father in September last, the Madras High Court Bench here on Thursday stressed the need for registering First Information Reports (FIR) irrespective of territorial jurisdiction. A Division Bench of Justices S. Nagamuthu and M.V. Muralidaran passed the order on a habeas corpus petition filed by C. Gnanaiah (50) of Sankarankoil Taluk in Tirunelveli district on August 10 this year seeking a direction to Tirunelveli police to save his daughter G. Anbu Stella, a lab technician, from the clutches of a Pastor Millan (50) of Tharuvai in Tirunelveli district. Article referred: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Madurai/register-firs-irrespective-of-jurisdiction-hc-tells-police/article9203255.ece

The Supreme Court in Cheviti Venkanna Yadav vs. State of Telangana and Ors, has upheld the constitutional validity of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets (Amendment) Act, 2015. Section 5 of the Andhra Pradesh (Agricultural Produce and Livestock) Markets (Amendment) Act, whereby the term of the market committee was reduced from three years to one year by giving retrospective effect in the Amendment Act, was under challenge before the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Aggrieved by the decision of division bench of the high court which had upheld the provisions, an appeal was preferred before the apex court. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/enactment-amendment-retrospective-effect-not-encroachment-upon-judicial-powers-sc/

The Supreme Court in Nitu vs. Sheela Rani, has held that family pension does not form part of the estate of the deceased and it is to be given under the provisions of the relevant pension scheme. The high court, in this case, had held that the mother of deceased employee was entitled to the succession certificate in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, as she was also one of the heirs to the deceased employee. The widow of the deceased approached the apex court against this order, which held that the mother should also get 50 per cent share in the pension. The apex court bench observed that the mother of a married officer has not been included in the definition of the term “family”, for the reason that as per the provisions of sub-clause (f) of 4(ii) of Family Pension Scheme of the Punjab Government, only parents of an unmarried officer would be a part of the family. Setting aside the judgment of the high court, the court reiterated the dictum laid in Violet

The Supreme Court in Gulshera Khanam vs. Aftab Ahmad, has held that any woman, married or unmarried, who has a legal right of residence in the building, is also included in the definition of “family” in relation to landlord, and is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant from such building for her bonafide need. The Bench comprising Justice J. Chelameswar and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre set aside the Allahabad High Court judgment that had held that Section 3(g)(iii) of the of Uttar Pradesh Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972, includes only an “unmarried daughter” and that the landlord cannot seek eviction for the need of her married daughter. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/married-daughter-legal-right-residence-building-can-seek-tenants-eviction-sc/

In FERNAS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY INC VS. GUJARAT STATE PETRONET LTD. , the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court held that any existence of dispute between the parties to the contract cannot be a ground to restrain from evoking the bank guarantee.

In A. Ayyasamy Vs. A. Paramasivam and Ors., the Hon'ble Supreme Court opined that where arbitration clause exists in an agreement/contract, mere allegation of fraud is not sufficient to detract from the obligation of the parties to submit their disputes to arbitration.

Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-II Versus M/s. Kalpesh Transport  Appeal against the assessee who has died / no more - transportation charges - loading and unloading charges - thappi charges - Held that: - the respondent was proprietorship firm under the Proprietor of Shri Arjun Chothani and now he is no more. Respondent being an individual dead person, the Revenue cannot file appeal against a dead person by making him respondent. Rule 22 of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 referred and held that if respondent dies, the appeal shall abate - merits of the case set aside - appeal disposed off - decided against Revenue.

Smt. Ujjawala Sitaram Baheti Versus Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 1, Jalgaon and Vica-Versa Computation of Long term capital gains (LTCG) - Disallowance of payment made to hutment dwellers for vacating the land - Held that:- These unauthorized occupants do not have permanent place of stay and they move from one place to another till the time they get place to settle down. Moreover, the dwellers were not personally known to the assessee. In such circumstances it is not prudent to expect from the assessee to produce the illegal occupants of land to whom payments were made. In so far as second objection is concerned the assessee has furnished a copy of title of civil suit filed in the Civil Court, Jalgaon. A perusal of same shows that the suit was filed against 19 defendants, if the assessee has included the name of some more persons in the list of unauthorized occupants to whom the payments have allegedly been made and the same are not verifiable, the Assessing Officer c

Mr. Zameer Moon Versus The DCIT 12 (2) , Mumbai  Disallowance of Club Membership Fees - Held that:- . On going through the order of the Ld. CIT(A), it is very clear that the expenses/club membership fee paid by the assessee cannot be allowed as business expenditure as it was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The assessee could not prove with evidences that the amounts paid for club membership fee was incurred for the purpose of the business. None of the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) have been rebutted with evidences and therefore there is no valid reason to interfere with the findings/decision of the Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer. - Decided against assessee Article referred: Tax Management India.com

Rambhool Singh Versus State & Anr. Dishonoring of cheques - Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Held that:- Section 139 of the N.I. Act provides for raising of presumption to the effect that the holder of the cheque has received it in discharge of liability. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vijay v. Laxman and Anr. (2013 (5) TMI 40 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) has observed that once the cheque has been issued and the signatures thereon has been admitted by the accused, then it is not available to the accused to take the defence that the cheque was not issued by him. The present revision petition has been filed assailing the judgments/orders passed by the Courts below. After going through the record and the submissions made by the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no apparent illegality or infirmity in the judgments/orders passed by the Courts below. This Court is not sitting in appeal and is dealing with the revision petition. It is a settled l

Director of Income Tax (IT) I, Mumbai Versus Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction Co. Reopening of assessment - reasons to believe - Held that:- A notice of reopening, the Assessing Officer does not have to “establish” that any income has escaped assessment. He must simply be shown to have formed an opinion, which, in turn, is supported by reasons. The reasons themselves must be based on some material. A minimum requirement one would expect in the face of this scheme of things is that the material used by the Assessing Officer for forming his opinion must have some bearing or nexus with escapement of income. If not, the reopening notice would be clearly without jurisdiction. In the present case, the material used by the Assessing Officer for purportedly forming this opinion is the description of the assessee of itself as “a supplier” of the equipment in an EPC contract, which inter alia required it to take offshore delivery of the equipment from a foreign vendor and supply an

M/s. Countech Systems Poonam and A. Bhattacharya (Partners) , M/s. Glory Hi-tech and Sudhir Dingra Director Versus CC, Faridabad Valuation - related person u/s 4 (4) (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944 - assessable value - extended period of limitation - demand of duty with interest - imposition of penalty - constitution of firm referred - Held that: - constitutions of the firms states that the appellant M/s.Glory Hitech is company and M/s.Countech Systems is partnership firm and the trading company is also private limited company. From the constitution, it is clear that the appellants and the trading company are not related to each other in terms 4 (4) (c) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The decision in the case of Reliance Industries Products vs. CCE [2011 (3) TMI 704 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] relied upon where it was held that The three conditions are to be satisfied before it can be inferred the existing relationship namely, (i) there should be mutuality of interest, (ii) alleged related pers

In JAYSUKH @ JAYESH MULJIBHAI RANPARIYA (PATEL) VS. STATE, the Hon'ble  GUJARAT HIGH COURT, the Court cannot issue warrant in aid of investigation prior to filing of chargesheet. Issuance of warrant, without serving notice or bailable warrant and that too in aid of investigation without direction to produce the accused before the appropriate Court is liable to set aside. The Hon'ble HC also said that  once litigant is before the Court by filing of any proceeding, then, he is to be treated in judicial custody and in that case, it would be appropriate for the concerned Court to pass appropriate direction to such Petitioner to appear before the competent authority in aid of investigation and to ensure that investigation is completed.

In SOSAMMA OOMMAN VS. ANNAMMA SIMON, the Hon'ble KERALA HIGH COURT held that a family settlement is binding on the members of the family even if one of the parties have not subscribed his signature to the deed. But there should be clinching evidence to show that the party who is not a signatory to the deed has acquiesced in the settlement by his subsequent conduct. Further an unregistered agreement can be treated as a family settlement only if it records past transaction and is complete in itself as regards the rights and liabilities.

In Vivek Batra Vs. Union of India, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India while dismissing the petition challenging the sanction dated 09.10.2012 for prosecution of the appellant under Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 irected against judgment and order dated 29.10.2013, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 3654 of 2012, held that Sanction cannot be held invalid only for the reason that in the administrative notings different authorities have opined differently before the competent authority took the decision in the matter.

The National Commission Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has upheld an order of the state commission, which had ordered the arrest of officials of a real estate for failing to hand over flats or make refunds on time. In the instant case, in spite of the proclamation published against the director and general manager of the company under Section 82 CrPC, they did not appear before the state commission, and hence, were declared as proclaimed offenders.  The state commission then ordered their arrest, so as to take proceedings against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This order by the state commission was assailed before the national commission. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/can-builders-arrested-failing-hand-flats-ncdrc-says-yes/

In Tin Plate Dealers Association Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Satish Chandra Sanwalka, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under  Section 87(2) of the Companies Act, 1956, except in situations where dividends have not been paid, holders of preference shares do not have a right to vote except in matters which directly affects the rights attached to the preference shares.

The Madras High Court has recently held that a petition for a direction to register an FIR on the complaint of the petitioner is not maintainable before the high court if the petitioner has not exhausted remedies provided under the Criminal Procedure Code and the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari case. Justice P.N. Prakash disposed of a batch of petitions by giving the following directions: i A petition under Section 482, Cr.P.C. for a direction to register an FIR on the complaint of the petitioner circumventing the time table prescribed by the Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari-IV and V is not maintainable. ii This Court directs all the Station House Officers in the State of Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Puducherry to receive any complaint relating to the commission of cognizable offence by a common man and if the Station House Officer wants to conduct a preliminary enquiry, he shall immediately issue a CSR receipt (in case of Tamil Nadu) or issue a separate rece

The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) has held that a complaint under Section 12 (1)(c) of the Consumer Protection (CP) Act can be filed only on behalf of or for the benefit of all the consumers, having a common interest or a common grievance and seeking the same/identical relief against the same person. It has also been made clear that in a class action suit (complaint) instituted under Section 12(1) (c) of the Consumer Protection Act, the pecuniary jurisdiction is to be determined on the basis of aggregate of the value of the goods purchased or the services hired or availed by all the consumers on whose behalf or for whose benefit the complaint is instituted and the total compensation claimed in respect of such consumers. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/class-action-suits-under-consumer-protection-act-can-be-filed-for-the-benefit-of-all-the-consumers-ncdrc-fb/

The Supreme Court in Syeda Rahimunnisa vs. Malan Bi (Dead) by L.Rs. & Anr. Etc., has held that the high court, while hearing a second appeal, has no jurisdiction to remand a case to the trial court, especially when no party to the appeal raised this ground before the first appellate court or/and the high court as to why the remand of the case to the trial court is called for and nor there was any finding recorded on this question by the first appellate court. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/hc-cant-remand-cases-either-party-doesnt-seek-sc/

In Amrit Jal Ventures Vs. SREI Infrastructure Finance, the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court while allowing the borrowers application for proceeding under Arbitration Act held that In Indian Bank (supra) the Hon’ble Division Bench considered Sections 31, 17, 18 19(6) to (11) of the RDB Act, 1993 and held that it would be evident from Sections 17 and 18 of the RDB Act that civil courts jurisdiction is barred only in regard to the application filed by a bank or a financial institution for recovery of its debts. The jurisdiction of civil courts is not barred in regard to any suit filed by a borrower or any other person against a bank for any other relief. There is no provision in the Act for transfer of suits and proceedings, except section 31, which relates to suit/proceeding by a bank or financial institution for recovery of a debt. Sections 19(6) to (11) (as introduced by Act 1 of 2000), are merely enabling provisions. Significantly, Sections 17 and 18 have not been amended. Jurisd

In Jose @ Pappachan Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy, while elaborating on the Law of Evidence, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touch stone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted.

In Raffles Design International India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Educomp Professional Education Ltd., the hon'ble Delhi High Court held that under Section 27 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, a person guilty of not following the interim orders of the arbitral proceedings held outside India cannot be proceeded for the contempt under Section 27 of the Act.

In Seth Industrial Corporation Vs. State, the hon'ble Rajasthan High Court while referring to earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that the scope of judicial review in award of contracts has been defined by the Hon’ble Supreme court in various decisions on which the reliance has been placed by the petitioner as well as the respondents. The ultimate conclusion of the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is this that the High Court can interfere in the contractual matters when the action of the tendering authority is found to be malicious, discriminatory or the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say, the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached. It has also been held that where the public interest is affected, the court can also interfere in the contractual matters. In Tata Cellular vs. Union of India, 1994, after examining the en

In Deutsche Bank Ag Vs. State, the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held that under Section 173 (8) of  the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, insofar as the matter relating to the investigation to be conducted on a complaint, the Investigating Officer will have to carry out the investigation in all earnestness. He should neither exclude any relevant material nor should he be expected to create or fabricate material to bring to book the accused under any circumstance. It should be a fair investigation. On completion of the investigation and the report is laid before the jurisdictional Court, the learned Judge of such Court has the duty to examine the report and either accept the same or to order further or fresh investigation. In appropriate cases the learned Judge may also record evidence and proceed in terms of Section 202 of Cr PC. Further as for Investigation by another Agency under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the power to direct the investigation by another agency shou

In Bhagwan Jagannath Markad Vs. State of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the court has to assess whether read as a whole, it is truthful. In doing so, the court has to keep in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities to find out whether such discrepancies shake the truthfulness. Some discrepancies not touching the core of the case are not enough to reject the evidence as a whole. No true witness can escape from giving some discrepant details. Only when discrepancies are so incompatible as to affect the credibility of the version of a witness, the court may reject the evidence. Section 155 of the Evidence Act enables the doubt to impeach the credibility of the witness by proof of former inconsistent statement. Section 145 of the Evidence Act lays down the procedure for contradicting a witness by drawing his attention to the part of the previous statement which is to be used for contradiction. The former state