Legal News & Views

In an important pronouncement which would have serious impact in states having significant tribal population, the Apex Court has held that Banks can sell tribal land to non-tribal even if prohibited by state law. The Supreme Court in UCO Bank vs. Dipak Debbarma, has held that the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002, which do not contain any embargo on the category of persons to whom mortgaged property can be sold by the bank for realisation of its dues that will prevail over the provisions contained in Section 187 of the Tripura Land Revenue and Land Reforms Act, 1960. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/banks-can-sell-tribal-land-non-tribal-even-prohibited-state-law-sc/

The Supreme Court in Anjan Dasgupta vs. The State of West Bengal, has held that the receipt and recording of First Information Report is not a condition precedent for setting in motion a criminal investigation and the police are duty bound to start investigation when it gets information with regard to commission of crime. A trial court had acquitted an accused observing that the FIR was ante-timed as the prosecution witness, who gave the written complaint for lodging an FIR, deposed that that he went to the police station after 7.30 pm. The court observed that the FIR could not have been lodged before 7.30­8 pm and the mention of time of receiving the information in the FIR as 17.35 hours clearly proves that it was ante-timed. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/recording-fir-not-condition-precedent-starting-criminal-investigation-sc/

In State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Dhirendra Pal Singh and Ors., Respondent was Assistant Store Superintendent with Irrigation Department of State of Uttar Pradesh. He stood retired on 30th June, 2009 on attaining age of superannuation. At time of his retirement GPF, leave encashment and 70% of gratuity and pension were cleared, but rest of 30% of gratuity and computation of pension were held up. Stand of Appellants is that there were some discrepancies in the stock in the store of Department and some enquiries were going on as to loss caused to public exchequer. After making representations, when remaining amount of gratuity and pension was not cleared, Respondent filed Civil Suit No. 338 of 2012. However, same was dismissed as withdrawn as Appellants/State authorities, vide order finally, on basis of alleged discrepancies withheld the remaining part of gratuity and pension of the Respondent and, vide order, directed recovery of Rs. 7,26,589/-, from retiral dues payable to Resp...

In The New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Hussain Babulal Shaikh, Petitioner-New India Assurance Company Limited filed instant petition challenging order passed by learned member of Maharashtra Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby an application of Respondent No.1 for issuance of warrant of attachment against Petitioner in execution of an award, for not depositing part of award amount, on ground that, same has been deducted as “tax deducted at source” (TDS), stands allowed. Issue which falls for consideration of the Court is 'whether the Petitioner would be justified in deducting tax at source (TDS) in respect of interest payment made under the award of the Tribunal. As per Section 194A of Income Tax Act, 1961, when any person not being an individual or Hindu undivided family who becomes responsible for paying to a resident any income by way of interest other than income by way of interest on securities, shall at time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time o...

In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh, Accused was charged with commission of offence under Section 20(b) (ii)(C) of Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, wherein he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Present appeal is preferred by Appellant/State assailing judgment of acquittal, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, whereby accused has been acquitted of charge framed against him under Section 20 of NDPS Act. Prosecution has been able to prove recovery of Charas weighing 4.5 kgs from exclusive and conscious possession of accused. Therefore, it was for accused person to have explained his innocence, as envisaged under Sections 35 and 54 of Act. The present, as such, is a case where presumption, as envisaged under Sections 35 and 54 of the Act, has to be drawn against accused, as the accused failed to explain his innocence. Present is not a case where it can be said that, prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused beyond all reasonable d...

In Paradeep Port Trust v. Chunilata Mohanty and Ors., 21-year old educated son of complainant, lost his life by drowning at Boat Club, owned by Appellant, Paradeep Port Trust. Appellant has tried to shift the blame on their lessee, the TIDC, saying that the entire responsibility for running the Boat Club had been entrusted upon OP-2. Vide impugned order, State Commission, after taking into account averments of parties, allowed consumer complaint and directed OPs to pay a sum of 5 lakh as compensation to complainant for gross deficiency in service alongwith 5,000/- as litigation cost. It is against this order that present appeal has been made before this Commission. Since, TIDC was only bidder, as stated by Appellant, they handed over operation of Boat Club alongwith Open Air Restaurant to them for a period of 6 years. It was evident that, while making such arrangements, Appellant should have ensured that, all terms and conditions, and more so, those mentioned in technical bid wer...

In State Bank of India v. Pushpakala R. Jimulia and Ors.,  matter is relating to deficiency in service on part of Bank in denying payment of cheque and resultantly, financial loss had been caused to complainant. District Forum ordered the dismissal of the consumer complaint on the ground that the complainants were not consumers. Being aggrieved against the said order of the District Forum, the complainants challenged the same by way of an appeal before the State Commission, which partly allowed the same vide impugned order, and found the Bank deficient in rendering service to the respondent and directed them to pay an amount of Rs. 7 lakhs as compensation for mental agony and negligence on their part. Being aggrieved against said order, OP Bank is before this Commission by way of present revision petition. In present case, complainants are maintaining a regular savings bank account with OP Bank since 2005. It is clear, therefore, that they have been availing themselves of se...