Legal News & Views

In Amrit Paul Singh Vs. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., the insurer, opposed the claim on the ground that the offending vehicle in question was driven in violation of the terms of the insurance policy and further the driver was not having a valid and effective driving license and, therefore, it was not obliged to indemnify the insured. That apart, a stand was taken that the vehicle did not have the permit on the date of the accident.  The tribunal noted that the vehicle was purchased in September 2012 and insured on 20.12.2012. It was registered on 26.02.2013. The accident, as stated earlier, occurred on 3 19.02.2013. The tribunal, placing reliance on the decision rendered by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Bharathamma and others, held that the insurer was not liable.  The order was challenged by the owner stating that he had deposited the necessary fees along with application on 19.02.2013 for issue of route permit and the same was issued on 27.0

In Ramesh Chand Koiri vs Chandan Koiri, revision application was filed before the Calcutta High Court by the plaintiff against the order of dismissal of suit of specific relief by the trial court.  The Trial court had dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Actspeaks of recovery of possession not on the ground of title but on the basis of prior possession which the plaintiff had failed to prove. The plaintiff as evidence had produced attested photo copy of the tenancy agreement dated January 25, 2006, some rent bill and FIR lodged before the local police station complaining of illegal dispossession. The High Court agreeing with the trial court held that Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides a special and speedy remedy for particular kind of grievance to replace in possession a person who had been evicted, from the immovable property of which he had been in possession otherwise than by process of law. Therefore, possession

In Sayed Nair Hasan vs Santi Singh, the writ petition was filed before the HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, by the petitioner/judgment-debtor directed against the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the petitioner's/judgment debtor's application under Order 21 Rule 29 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure on the ground that the said order was unsustainable and bad in law as present is a fit case where the trial Court ought to have exercised discretion vested in it under Order 21 Rule 29 of the CPC. The High court said that the jurisdiction to stay execution of decree under Order 21 Rule 29 of the CPC has to be exercised with great care and only in exceptional and extra-ordinary cases as the power to grant stay is discretionary. Though the power to grant stay is discretionary, yet it should be exercised on certain legal principle. Referring to the judgment in Judhistir Jena v. Surendra Mohanty, the Court said that the fundamental consideration is that th

In Sudarsan Puhan vs. Jayanta Ku. Mohanty, the issue before the Supreme Court was that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had awarded an amount of Rs.24, 62,065 to a youth who, as a result of the accident, had to suffer “paraplegia” (injury in the spinal cord). Both the claimant and the Insurer approached the Apex court in Appeal. The claimant’s appeal was dismissed as infructuous, while the insurer’s appeal was partly allowed reducing the compensation to Rs.20, 00,000. Before the Apex court, it was contended on behalf of claimant that, the High court neither set out the facts, nor dealt with any issue, nor appreciated the ocular and documentary evidence much less in its proper perspective, nor examined the legal principles applicable to the issues arising in the case and nor rendered its findings on any contentious issues decided by the Tribunal except to observe “Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties” and “I feel, the interest of justice would be bes

In Prabhat Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd. vs Excel Metal Processors Pvt. Ltd., the Bombay High Court has held that a third party to an arbitration proceeding has the right to maintain an appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, if they are affected by an order passed by an arbitrator under Section 17 of the said Act. Justice RD Dhanuka heard a batch of 13 petitions filed under section 37 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, wherein the petitioners prayed for leave to appeal against the order passed by a sole arbitrator dated December 27, 2016, and an order by the high court dated November 17, 2017, in an arbitration proceeding between Excel Metal Processors Pvt Ltd (Respondent No.1) and Shakti International Pvt Ltd (Respondent No. 2).

In JASWANT SINGH vs PUNJAB AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, a suitwas file d by Punjab Agricultural University seeking recovery of possession from one Jaswanth Singh, was decreed by the trial court. Singh’s appeals before the first appellate court and Punjab and Haryana High Court were dismissed, not on maintainability, but on merits as also the second appeal, against which the matter was taken to the Supreme Court. A suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act is filed by a person dispossessed seeking to recover possession. Sub-section 3 clearly states that no appeal shall lie from any order or decree passed in any suit instituted under this Section, nor shall any review of any such order or decree be allowed.  The Supreme Court court while dismissing the SLP said that  it is surprising that in a Section 6 Suit, appeals have solemnly been filed and heard on merits. What is even more surprising is that from the first appeal dismissal, a second appeal is also filed and dismissed. W

In MOTHER BOON FOODS PVT LTD vs MINDSCAPE ONE MARKETING PVT LTD, when the dispute between the parties could not be resolved, the matter was taken to arbitration. The Respondent constituted a three member tribunal, which issued notices to the parties. The Petitioner had at the earliest instant the sent a letter challenging the constitution of tribunal and the Petitioner did not participate in the arbitration proceedings. The tribunal adjourned the matter and issued notices to the Petitioner. Despite the same, the Petitioner did not appear. Arbitration proceedings were, accordingly, closed and the impugned award was passed. The Submission of the Petitioner before the Delhi High Court was that as per the clause in the agreement, the Respondent was to appoint a Sole Arbitrator. A three member tribunal, fully chosen by the Respondent is, therefore, contrary to the agreement between the parties and the provisions of the Act. Hence the tribunal’s constitution being contrary to the agreem

In P. RADHA BAI vs P. ASHOK KUMAR, an interesting question of law was put to the Supreme Court concerning the applicability of Section 17 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of a delay caused on the account of alleged fraud played on the objector (party challenging the award) beyond the period prescribed under Section 34 (3) of the Arbitration Act. The background of the issue was that the litigants were in a property dispute which went for arbitration and an award was passed. 236 days after the passing of the award, the Respondents herein approached trial court for condonation of delay and alleged fraud being committed on them by the Appellants herein. The Trial court however dismissed the application stating that condonation of delay beyond the limit prescribed by the Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is being its power. On appeal the High Court remanded the matter back to the lower court with the instruction to consider delay in the light of the fraud angle against which

In Motiram Padu Joshi v. State Of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court reiterated that evidence of the eye witnesses cannot be doubted on the ground that they did not intervene in the attack nor made attempts to save the deceased. In this case, the high court had reversed the order of acquittal of the trial court. The trial court had found favour with the argument that the eye witnesses did not go to the rescue of the deceased and it is quite unbelievable that on seeing the accused who were armed with weapons, both of them went inside the house. The High Court held that the trial court erred in disbelieving the evidence of eye witnesses. The Supreme Court agreed with the high court observation that the trial court gave importance to insignificant issues and the conduct of the witnesses as to why they have not reacted in a particular manner. The bench observed that their evidence cannot be doubted on the ground that they did not intervene in the attack nor made attempts to save the d

In M/s Uttam Traders Ranghri vs. Tule Ram alias Tula Ram, an appeal was filed before the Himachal Pradesh High Court solely on the ground that one of the partners of the complainant-firm which is an unregistered partnership concern, had failed to prove that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint and acquitted the respondent. The High Court decided that two questions arise for consideration in this matter :- 1) Whether acquittal by the magistrate solely on the ground that the managing partner of the appellant having failed to establish that he was one of the partners of the complainant-firm and duly authorised by it to file the complaint was correct 2) Whether a partner of an unregistered partnership firm can maintain a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. For the first issue, the High Court referred to M/s Haryana State Co.Op., Supply and Marketing Federation Ltd. vs. M/s Jayam Textiles

In Mohammad Yaseen Shah Vs. Ghulam Nabi Rather, an appeal was filed before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court against the decision of the trial court to allow an application filed by the Respondent No. 5 to be included as a necessary party to the litigation. The High Court declared that the Trial Court had been correct as it had found that in the original dispute for ownership of a piece of land, both the litigants had claimed their title through the Respondent No. 5. The High Court explained that the object of adding the parties under the provisions Order I Rule 10 of the Code is to avoid the multiplicity of the suits and the rule authorises and empowers the Court to add a party even for the purpose of the final determination of the questions involved in the suit as between a party on the record and the party sought to be added. The general rule in regard to the impleadment of the parties is that the plaintiff in a suit, being dominus litis, may choose the persons against who

In NATIONALINSURANCECO. LTD. vs ASHALATA BHOWMIK, appeal was filed by the insurer before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Tripura High Court directing the appellant-insurer to pay the compensation of Rs.10,57,800/- to the respondents awarded by the MACT with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of payment. The contention of the insurer was that the deceased himself was the owner-cum- driver of the offending vehicle. He was not a third party within the meaning of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act'). The accident had occurred due to the negligence of the deceased. Therefore, the appellant, being insurer of the vehicle, was not liable to pay the compensation. The High Court however while accepting that the deceased was not a third party and that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, held that as it has been established by the claimant- re

In M.E. Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, the petitioner objected to the Municipal Corporation's decision to accept the tender of Respondents 8 to 10, when they had not disclosed the litigations history of last five years as required in the tender condition. The Bombay High Court agreeing with the decision of the Corporation held that disclosure of all litigation history is not an essential condition for the tender. It is merely ancillary or subsidiary to the main tender conditions. Prescribing such a condition, calling upon a bidder to provide litigation history is aimed to enable the municipal corporation to take a decision on the acceptability of a tender/bid by examining issues prejudicial to the interest of the municipal corporation, in the context of the tender. There can be no other purpose for prescribing such a condition. It also cannot be countenanced, that by prescribing such a condition, the municipal corporation would expect a bi

In SANDISK LLC vs MEMORY WORLD, the matter before the Delhi High Court was one of infringement of trademark and related issues. The defendant had made one appearance and the failed to appear further for any hearing and an ex-party ad-interim injunction had earlier been issued. Subsequently, the High Court, invoking the power of the court under Order XIII-A of the Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act, 2015 which empowers the Court to pass a summary judgment, without recording evidence, if it appears that the defendants have no real prospect of defending the claim and there is no other compelling reason why claim should not be disposed of, did so as in the opinion of the Court, the defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim and no other compelling reason appears to this Court why claim of the plaintiffs should not be disposed of. This is so because the defendant has not filed its written statement despite entering app

In Jagjit Singh Vs. Amarjit Singh,  the respondent herein  alleged that he had entered into an agreement dated 17.10.2000 with Jagjit Singh (since deceased, the appellant herein) hereinafter referred to as "the defendant", for purchase of half share in the shop in dispute for a total sale consideration of Rs. 1,50,000/. According to the plaintiff, Rs. 1,30,000/was paid in cash at the time of execution of the agreement to sell. The balance amount was to be paid on or before 30.03.2003, by which date the sale deed was to be executed and registered. It was further alleged that the date for execution and registration of the sale deed was extended by mutual consent of the parties till 09.10.2003. The defendant denied the execution of the sale deed itself. According to him, he had not been paid any money. The trial court on consideration of the entire evidence came to the conclusion that no agreement to sell had been executed between the parties and accordingly dismissed the s

"In case of inconsistency, new act will override older act" In Prasanta Kumar Mitra vs India Steam Laundry (P) Ltd., appeal was filed before the divisional bench of the Calcutta High Court against order that the High court has lost jurisdiction from 15th December 2016 to entertain all proceedings under Companies Act, 1956 and the same stood transferred to the National Company Law Tribunal. The Division bench comprising of Chief Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya and Justice Shekhar B. Saraf, upholding the single bench order, held as follows:        1) The jurisdiction of the High Court in company matters being a special jurisdiction conferred by the 1956 Act, and not being a civil jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the same can always be ousted by the amendment of the enactment that conferred the said jurisdiction. Hence, no express repealing is required and the same can be repealed by implication 2) Change of forum is not a choice of parties,

In State of Orissa Vs. Mahimananda Mishra, appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the order of the Orissa High Court granting bail to the defendant. The objection of the state was that the defendant after filing of the FIR against him, had surreptitiously left the country and being a rich and influential person can do so again and may influence the witnesses if allowed to go free. Also there is through letters and other evidences, proving that there existed serious animosity between the defendant and the deceased and that there are several major criminal cases pending against him. The High Court proceeded to grant bail to the respondent on the ground that there is no prima facie material against the respondent to establish his involvement in the conspiracy to murder the deceased, that the undated letter of the deceased addressed to the police showing apprehension to his life cannot be treated as a dying declaration; the material on record does not indicate any motiv