Legal News & Views

  Cause Title :  K.S. Rama Rao vs Subbalakshmi, R.S.A No. 1092 OF 2018, Karnataka High Court,  Date of Judgment/Order : 17 November, 2022 Corum : Sachin Shankar Magadum; J. Citied: NA Background The Plaintiff had claimed that he and his elder brother (now deceased) had jointly purchased a property in the name of the elder brothers wife (also deceased)  out of joint earnings in a hotel run by them . Plaintiff also claimed that he was in joint possession over the suit schedule property and that his brother acknowledging his contribution towards sale consideration, has made a bequeath under his will. This claim was disputed by the daughter of the elder brother. The trial court rejected the claim stating that there is no mention in regard to the joint earning of plaintiff and his elder brother and there is no covenant indicating that the sale consideration was jointly pooled by plaintiff and his elder brother. As for the will, the trial court was of the view that the  elder brother  had no

Cause Title :  Chipsan Aviation Private Limited vs  Punj Llyod Aviation Limited,  Company Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 261 of 2022,  National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi Date of Judgment/Order : 10th November, 2022 Corum : Justice Ashok Bhushan Chairperson, Barun Mitra] Member (Technical) Citied:  Construction Consortium Limited vs. Hitro Energy Solutions Private Limited – (2022) SCC OnLine SC 142 Background An application under Section 9 of the Insolvency Code was filed against the Corporate Debtor (Respondent) alleging an advanced of Rs. 60 lakhs was provided to the Respondent – Corporate Debtor for aviation related services, which services were not provided by the Corporate Debtor nor the advance paid by the Appellant was refunded. The advance payment was reflected in the Balance Sheets of the Corporate Debtor as  as advance received from the customers  under the head current liabilities.  The Respondent refuted the claim stating that there was no priv

Cause Title :  Kiran Tomar & Ors versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No 1865 of 2022, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : October 31, 2022 Corum : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud; J., Hima Kohli; J. Citied: NA Background The Family Court in a matter of maintenance of wife and child had directed the husband to pay his wife Rs 20,000 per month and Rs 15,000 each of his daughters.  The High Court on appeal set aside the order of the family court stating :- Whereas the wife stated that the husband earns an amount of Rs Two Lakhs per month, his income tax return indicates that the husband is earning Rs 4.5 Lakhs per annum; and The Family Court had not indicated the basis on which it had assessed the income of the husband  at Rs Two Lakhs per month. The matter reached the Supreme Court. Judgment Setting aside the order of the High Court and restoring the Criminal Revision to the file of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad for consideration afresh, th

Cause Title :  Nagesh vs State Of Karnataka, Criminal Revision Petition No.580/2013, Karnataka High Court Date of Judgment/Order : 29th Day Of October, 2022 Corum : S. Rachaiah, J. Citied:  Background The appellants were accused before the trial court as well as the appellate court. Both courts have found them guilty of having accused severe injury to several people who were ploughing on a disputed field using the ploughing equipment being used by the injured. However, the trial court had also noted that by virtue of a court order, the father of the accused who is also the uncle/granduncle of the injured, was the owner of the field and therefore the accused were not trespassers. Judgment The High court observed that both courts have failed to appreciate the evidence and the relevant law. Once it is agreed that the accused are not trespassers, rather the injured were cultivating on land which did not belong to them, Section 96 and 97 of the Indian Penal Code comes into play. The Trial C

Cause Title :  Bharat Kalra vs Raj Kishan Chabra, Civil Appeal  No.3788  Of 2022, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 9th May, 2022 Corum : Hemant Gupta & V. Ramasubramanian, J.J. Citied: Kailash V. Nankhu & Ors. reported in (2005) 4 SCC 480 Background Appeal was filed against order passed by the High Court whereby delay of 193 days in filing of the written statement was not condoned. Judgment Referring to the judgement in  Kailash V. Nankhu & Ors. (supra), the Supreme Court concluded that :- i) All the rules of procedure are the handmaid of justice. The language employed by the draftsman of processual law may be liberal or stringent, but the fact remains that the object of prescribing procedure is to advance the cause of justice. In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the opportunity of participating in the process of justice dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the Statute, the provisions of the CPC or any

Cause Title :  Antriksh Developers And Promoters Private Limited & Anr. Vs Kutumb Welfare Society (Regd.) & Anr., Supreme Court, Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 31629/2022 Date of Judgment/Order : 04-11-2022 Corum : M.R. Shah; J., M.M. Sundresh; J. Citied: New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage (P) Ltd. (2020) 5 SCC 757. Background Appeal filed against order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission refusing to condone delays of more than 45 days in filling written version. Judgment Agreeing with the NCDRC and referring to the judgment in New India Assurance(supra) observed that the period of limitation to file is 30 days which can be condoned up to 15 days only and the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to condone the delay beyond the prescribed period mentioned in the Statute. Note: In Topline Shoes Ltd. v. Corporation Bank (2002) 6 SCC 33, pari materia provision contained in Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 came up

Cause Title :  Balu Krishna Chavan vs The Reliance General Insurance, Civil Appeal No. Of 2022, Supreme Court Of India Date of Judgment/Order : 03rd November, 2022 Corum : A.s. Bopanna & Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J Citied: Manuara Khatun & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh & Ors Background The question before the Supreme Court was whether the Respondent-Insurance Company should be directed to “pay and recover” in the facts arising in the case. Judgment The Supreme Court observed that in Civil Appeal No(s).3047 of 2017 titled as “Manuara Khatun & Ors. Vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh & Ors”, the Supreme Court has concluded that normally, there would be no order to “pay and recover”. However, in the said facts, this Court, to meet the ends of justice, had taken into consideration the fact situation though, the claimant therein, was a ‘gratuitous passenger’ and had kept in view that the benevolent object of the Act and had directed the payment by the Insurance Company and to recover th