Legal News & Views

In RAJ PAL SINGH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, an appeal was preferred before the Supreme Court from an order from High Court, in which it held that the capital gains arising out of land acquisition compensation were chargeable to income-tax under Section 45 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the previous year referable to the date of award of compensation i.e., 29.09.1970 and not the date of notification for acquisition. The legal issue that arose in this appeal was this: when capital gains would accrue in a case of compulsory acquisition of land where possession had already been taken before reaching of the relevant stage for taking over possession in the structured process contemplated by the statute? The Supreme Court has observed that capital gains in a case of compulsory acquisition of land [under Land Acquisition Act of 1894] shall be deemed to have accrued: (a) upon making of the award, in the case of ordinary acquisition referable to Section 16; and (b) after expiration of fift

In Nazir Mohamed vs J. Kamala And Ors., appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court on a second appeal filed before it. Disagreeing with the decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the High Court has erred in its conclusion that there was contradiction in the findings of the First Appellate Court, in that the First Appellate Court had declined the Respondent Plaintiff the relief of delivery of possession of the suit property but had granted the Respondent Plaintiff mesne profits for three years, prior to the institution of the suit.  In this case, plaintiff Sled a suit seeking declaration of title to the suit property and recovery of possession of the suit property from the Defendant. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The First Appellate Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal and held that being the owner of a portion of the said premises, he was entitled to declaration of title in respect of the said portion of the suit property

In Nazir Mohamed vs J. Kamala And Ors., appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court on a second appeal filed before it. Disagreeing with the decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that the High Court has erred in its understanding of the nuances of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) as there was no " Substantial Question Of Law" involved and went on to explain the same in detail as well as the maxim "Possession follows title". The Supreme Court observed that Section 100 of the CPC, as amended, restricts the right of second appeal, to only those cases, where a substantial question of law is involved. The existence of a “substantial question of law” is the sine qua non for the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC. However, what constitutes a substantial question of law has not been defined int the CPC.  The principles for deciding when a question of law becomes a substantial question of la

In NARASAMMA & ORS. vs A. KRISHNAPPA, an appeal was filed before the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court, which in turn had reversed the order of the trial court in a matter of title and possession of a property. The trial court had rejected the appellants plea of title but accepted the plea of adverse possession but the same was in turn rejected by the High Court. Hence the appeal. The Supreme Court observed that the appellants herein have sought to take a plea of bar of limitation vis-à-vis the original defendant claiming that possession came to them in 1976, with the suit being filed in 1989. Yet at the same time, it is claimed that the wife had title on the basis of these very documents.  The Supreme Court decided that whether simultaneously a plea can be taken of title and adverse possession, i.e., whether it would amount to taking contradictory pleas. The Supreme Court agreeing with the respondents referred to four judgments of the Supreme Court :- i) Karnata

 A very important section of the Transfer of Property Act (TP Act) has come to light through appeal filed before Kerala High Court in M.P.VARGHESE vs ANNAMMA YACOB. In this matter,  the petitioner and the respondents are siblings and the partition deed of the properties of their late father contained a covenant that both he and his brother - the second respondent - must pay an amount of Rs.500/- each to their sister - the first respondent - within a year, failing which she has been allowed to recover it, for which purpose, the said amounts would stand charged on the respective properties. The petitioner says that though the first respondent accepted Rs.500/- from the second respondent, she refused to do so when he offered her the same and therefore, that the property allotted to him under the Partition Deed is still burdened with this obligation. He said that he unable to sale the property as the said due amount is standing as a charge on the property. However as the District Court ref

In M/S. EXL CAREERS vs FRANKFINN AVIATION SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, appeal has been placed before us on a reference by a two Judge Bench opining a perceived conflict between two Division   Bench   decisions   in  Joginder   Tuli   vs.   S.L.   Bhatia, (1997) 1 SCC 502 and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. vs.   Modern   Construction   &   Co.,  (2014)   1   SCC   648.   The question of law required to be answered is that if a plaint is returned under Order VII Rule 10 and 10A of the Code of Civil Procedure   1908,  for presentation in the court in which it should have been instituted, whether the suit shall proceed  de novo  or will it continue from 1 the stage where it was pending before the court at the time of returning of the plaint. The order of reference also leaves it open for consideration if the conduct of the appellant disentitles it to any relief notwithstanding the decision on the issue of law.  The Court noticed that the observations in Joginder Tuli verdict are ver

In M/s Shree Tyres vs State, revision petition was filed before the Delhi Sessions Court for setting aside order dated 06.06.2019 passed by Ld. MM whereby the ld MM had dismissed the application for discharge of accused/ revisionists under section 138 Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act. One of the grounds raised by the petitioner was that there was discrepancy between the amount written in figures and words in the cheque which puts the very instrument in doubt as per the NI Act. The petitioner contended that the document which was presented before the bank was not a cheque or a negotiable instrument within the definition of the NI Act and the offence u/s 138 NI Act could only have been attracted if a cheque is dishonoured. The Court observed that the amount written in words is absurd and in no manner can help in ascertainment of the cheque amount. The amount in figures has been written as "Rs.44,18,896/-" whereas, the amount in words is written as "Forty Four Lacs Eighteen

In Erudhaya Priya Vs. State Express Transport Corporation Ltd., the appeal was filed before the Supreme Court seeking enhancement of compensation even over and above what was granted by the MACT. The appellant had suffered permanent disability of 31.1% due to accident and the MACT applied the multiplier method to calculate the loss of earning power. The total quantification of the compensation by the MACT was of Rs. 35,24,288 payable by the Respondent State Corporation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with costs.  The Respondent State Corporation on filling an appeal, the High Court, confirming the findings of negligence of the bus driver, reduced the compensation to Rs. 25,00,000 primarily on the ground that the multiplier method for quantifying loss of earning power has been wrongly applied as it had not come on record as to how the injuries suffered by the Appellant would have a bearing on her earning capacity as a software

In Sri Uttam Deb vs The State Of Tripura, appeal was filed before the Tripura High Court against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence  by the lower court. The High Court decided that the matter involved among others, the following questions :- (i)  whether there is any legal evidence as to inducement? (ii)   whether making of payment without any receipt or the agreement of high return can be believed in the course of human conduct? The complaint was filed against the appellant claiming that he had fraudulently induced the accuser to invest money in a company UNIPAY 2 U which did not exist. The High Court observed that in the statements of the victims were recorded by the police no single line would be available in the complaint that at any point of time, the petitioner had introduced that if he had invested the money in UNIPAY 2 U, that it will fetch high return in the form of interest. The victims have stated in the trial that he had inquired about the company but it reve

In  DHANPAT vs SHEO RAM (DECEASED), in the appeal before the Supreme Court against order of the High Court, while defending the impugned order, the  plaintiff-respondent argued that the original Will has not been produced and no application for leading secondary evidence was  filed. Therefore, the secondary evidence could not be led by the defendant to prove the execution of the Will. The  Supreme  Court observed that the Section 65 of the Evidence Act permits secondary evidence of existence, condition, or contents of a document including the cases where the original has been destroyed or lost. Dismissing the decision of the High Court, the Supreme Court held that there is no requirement that an application is required to be filed in terms of Section 65(c) of the Evidence Act before the secondary evidence is led. A party to the lis may choose to file an application which is required to be considered by the trial court but if any party to the suit has laid foundation of leading of secon