Skip to main content

Prisoners Have A Fundamental Right to Trade, and Profession

In Soma Saha Sen -Vs- State of West Bengal & Ors., an imprisoned developer wanted to sell property to the willing buyers by executing a registered sale deed. Several prayers were made before the jail authority regarding the same but it did not yield any result. The prisoner’s wife then approached the Calcutta High Court.

On hearing the matter, Justice Joymalya Bagchi maintained – “Right to carry on trade and profession including right to convey property in course of such business is an essential fundamental right enshrined under Article 19(i)(g) of the Constitution of India and the same do not stand eclipsed by the continuing incarceration of a prisoner. Hence, I am of the opinion that incarceration of the husband of the petitioner shall not disentitle him from executing sale deeds to convey flats in favour of intending purchasers in accordance with law.”

The judge further interpreted prison as being the temporary home of the inmate- “When a prisoner is incarcerated in a correctional home, it is to be deemed that the prisoner is temporarily residing in the said correctional home. In view of such fact the residence of the prisoner for the purpose of the proviso to the aforesaid Section shall be construed to be in the precincts of the correctional home. Hence, if the registering authority is approached on behalf of the prisoner for registering a document which he is otherwise entitled to execute, it shall ordinarily be the duty of the said authority to hold a commission inside the precincts of the correctional home for effecting presentation of the instrument for registration in terms of Section 31 of the said Act.”

Can a developer transfer immovable property by executing a registered sale deed while being in prison, was answered in the affirmative by the Calcutta High Court.

However, to register sale deed the person is expected to go to the Registrar’s office under whose jurisdiction the property is situated. But for the incarcerated, mobility is restricted. Thus the High Court ordered that in such cases the registration can be carried out inside the prison premises.

 Article referred:http://www.livelaw.in/prisoners-fundamental-right-trade-profession-rules-calcutta-hc/

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

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.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more