Legal News & Views

Cause Title :  Kamal Khudal v. State Of Assam, Criminal Appeal No. 470 Of 2015, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 14-07-2022 Corum : J.B. Pardiwala, J. Citied: Heikrujam Chaoba Singh v. State of Manipur, (1999) 8 SCC 458 Background The accused along with two others were convicted of murder based on a oral dying declaration along with some other circumstantial evidence namely :- 1) The convicted persons had accompanied the victim to a paddy field as per his relatives 2) All of them were seen by eye witnesses working in the field and then moving off to the liquor factory run by the accused 3) Key witness (PW-2) saw him stagger out of the shop and say he had been burnt. The trial court found them guilty and passed judgment. The High Court also dismissed the appeal. Hence, matter was brought to the Supreme Court. The accused objected to the  oral dying declaration of the deceased claiming it ought not to have been relied upon by the trial court as well as by the High Court as

Cause Title :  Karan Kapoor v. Madhuri Kumar, Civil Appeal No. 4545 Of 2022, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 06-07-2022 Corum : J.K. Maheshwari, J. Citied: Shrimant Rao Suryavanshi v. Prahlad Bhairoba Suryavanshi - 2002 (3) SCC 676             Hari Steel and General Industries Limited and Another v. Daljit Singh and Others – (2019) 20 SCC 425                Himani Alloys Ltd. v. Tata Steel Ltd reported in - 2011 (15) SCC 273                R. Kanthimathi v. Beatrice Xavier reported in - 2000 (9) SCC 339                Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalptram Iccharam - 1974 (1) SCC 242                S.M. Asif v. Virendar Kumar Bajaj – (2015) 9 SCC 287 Background The Respondent-Landlord entered into a Lease Agreement dated 07.08.2011 with the Appellant, namely M/s. Fantasy Lights, on monthly rental basis  24 months starting from 07.08.2011 till 07.08.2013 and interest free security deposit was paid by the Appellant at the time of the execution of the Lease Agreement. After the expir

Cause Title :  Perizad Zorabian Irani V/s. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central)-1 Mumbai & Ors, Writ Petition No.1333 Of 2021, Bombay High Court Date of Judgment/Order : 9th March 2022 Corum : K.R. Shriram & N.J. Jamadar, JJ Citied:  Background Petitioner is an individual deriving her income under the heads salary, income from house property, business / profession and income from other sources. Petitioner is an Actor by profession. Petitioner also is a partner in two partnership firms namely M/s Zorabian Sales and Marketing and M/s Zorabian Foods. Petitioner filed her return of income for A.Y.-2017-2018 under Section 139(1) of the Act declaring total income of Rs.1,75,88,360/-. Out of this total income, a sum of Rs.1,09,65,411/- was declared under the heads of business and profession. Out of Rs.1,09,65,411/-, petitioner derived a sum of Rs.8,45,220 as net income from petitioner’s acting profession and Rs.1,01,20,191/- as remuneration received as working partner from t

Cause Title : Sunita Palita & Others vs M/s Panchami Stone Quarry, The Supreme Court Of India, Criminal Appeal No. Of 2022 Date of Judgment/Order : August 01, 2022 Corum : Indira Banerjee; J., J.K. Maheshwari; J. Citied: National Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. v. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC 330, Supreme Court                Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.H. Mehta [Girdhari Lal Gupta v. D.H. Mehta, (1971) 3 SCC 189 : 1971 SCC (Cri) 279 : AIR 1971 SC 2162, Supreme Court                K.K. Ahuja v. V.K. Vora, Supreme Court                S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Neeta Bhalla, Supreme Court                Pooja Ravinder Devidasani v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., Supreme Court Background The Respondent M/s Panchami Stone Quarry, (“PSQ”) filed a petition of complaint, inter alia, against the Appellants under Section 138/141 of the NI Act.  The Respondent claimed that PSQ supplied materials to the Accused Company, M/s MBL Infrastructure Limited, and raised bills totalling Rs.2,31,

Cause Title : Tarsem Singh vs Major Singh, High Court Of Punjab And Haryana, RSA-5381-2019 (O&M) Date of Judgment/Order : 25.07.2022 Corum : Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Alka Sarin Citied: Bhartu vs. Ram Sarup [1981 PLJ 204]                Bachan Singh vs. Swaran Singh [2000(3) RCR (Civil) 70] Background     The plaintiff-appellant contended that the plaintiff-appellant is in exclusive possession of the suit land and the defendant-respondents are trying to illegally and forcibly interfere in his possession and, as such the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to the injunction as prayed for. Reliance was also placed on the entries of the khasra girdawri wherein, as per counsel, the plaintiff-appellant and his brothers are shown cultivating the suit land. The plaintiff-appellant claimed that the defendant-respondents were encroaching on their property and appealed for permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents.  On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence on the rec

Cause Title : Rishi Pal Singh Versus New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4919 Of 2022, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : July 26, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta; J., Vikram Nath; J. Background the truck owned by the appellant met with an accident. The owner deposed before the court that before employing the driver, he had taken his driving test and that he was driving the vehicle satisfactorily and  that the driver was employed with him for 3 years before the date of the accident. He produced his driving license. This was reaffirmed by the driver who deposed that the driving license was obtained from the driver and it was issued from Nagaland, but no such license was produced on record. Both the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and the High Court have held that the owner has alleged that the driver had a driving license from Nagaland but the same was not produced and therefore, the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the awarded amount from the owne

Cause Title : Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited vs Tulip Star Hotels Limited & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 84-85 Of 2020, The Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : August 01, 2022 Corum : Indira Banerjee J., J. K. Maheshwari J. Citied: Innoventive Industries Ltd. v. ICICI Bank and Anr., Supreme Court Background The Respondent (corporate debtor) took loan from a consortium of bankers. The account turned NPA and a settlement was arrived at between the parties on 7th February 2011 which was modified/changed on 28th February 2011, 29th September 2011. Subsequently several extensions were requested by the Corporate Debtor and accepted by the Appellant. Ultimately, on 17th June 2013, the Appellant revoked the settlement and in terms of the default obligations under the Settlement Agreement, the rate of interest under the Deed of Variation was revised to 22%. By its letter dated 1st July 2013, the Corporate Debtor acknowledged its obligation to repay the aggregate assigne

Cause Title :  Aftab Currim vs  Ibrahim Currim & Sons, Interim Application (L) No. 1897 Of 2022,  Bombay High Court Date of Judgment/Order : 8th April, 2022 Corum : N. J. Jamadar, J. Citied: Jodh Singh Gujral vs. S. Kesar Singh, High Court of Jammu and Kashmir Background Defendant no.1 is a registered partnership firm and defendant nos. 2 to 4 are its partner and in-charge of day to day affairs of defendant no.1 – firm. It is the case of the plaintiffs that upon the representation of defendant nos. 2 to 4 that the plaintiffs would get handsome i.e. 24% return on the investment made with the defendants, the plaintiffs had invested a sum of Rs.1 Crore, over a period of time. The amount was to be repaid on demand along with interest. The defendants committed default in repayment. Hence, the suit. Defendant no. 4 asserted that since, there are eight partners of defendant no. 1 – firm, it is necessary to implead the rest of the five partners as party defendants to this suit, as in the w