//
archives

High Court of Judicature

This tag is associated with 4 posts

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Agreement to sell land – Non-execution of – Suit for specific performance – Grant of decree and plea of seller that time was essence of contract rejected – However, High Court setting aside the decree – Validity of – Held: Recital in the agreement that earnest money would be forfeited upon failure to execute agreement within stipulated period makes it clear that parties never intended time to be essence of contract – More so, seller did not prove his plea – Thus, decree granted by trial court upheld – Buyer directed to deposit balance consideration amount and seller would execute sale deed. = PETITIONER: Balasaheb Dayandeo Naik (Dead)through LRs & Ors RESPONDENT: Appasaheb Dattatraya Pawar = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/helddis.aspx

Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Agreement to sell land – Non-execution of – Suit for specific performance – Grant of decree and plea of seller that time was essence of contract rejected – However, High Court setting aside the decree – Validity of – Held: Recital in the agreement that earnest money would be forfeited … Continue reading

Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short ‘the N.I. Act) by the IXth Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bandra, Mumbai in Complaint Case Nos. 292/S/1998, 293/S/1998, 297/S/1998, 298/S/1998, 299/S/1998 and 300/S/1998.= Power of Attorney holder = the attorney holder cannot file a complaint in his own name as if he was the complainant, but he can initiate criminal proceedings on behalf of his principal. We also reiterate that where the payee is a proprietary concern, the complaint can be filed (i) by the proprietor of the proprietary concern, describing himself as the sole proprietor of the “payee”; (ii) the proprietary concern, describing itself as a sole proprietary concern, represented by its sole proprietor; and (iii) the proprietor or the proprietary concern represented by the attorney holder under a power of attorney executed by the sole proprietor.= While holding that there is no serious conflict between the decisions in MMTC (supra) and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani (supra), we clarify the position and answer the questions in the following manner: (i) Filing of complaint petition under Section 138 of N.I Act through power of attorney is perfectly legal and competent. (ii) The Power of Attorney holder can depose and verify on oath before the Court in order to prove the contents of the complaint. However, the power of attorney holder must have witnessed the transaction as an agent of the payee/holder in due course or possess due knowledge regarding the said transactions. (iii) It is required by the complainant to make specific assertion as to the knowledge of the power of attorney holder in the said transaction explicitly in the complaint and the power of attorney holder who has no knowledge regarding the transactions cannot be examined as a witness in the case. (iv) In the light of section 145 of N.I Act, it is open to the Magistrate to rely upon the verification in the form of affidavit filed by the complainant in support of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I Act and the Magistrate is neither mandatorily obliged to call upon the complainant to remain present before the Court, nor to examine the complainant of his witness upon oath for taking the decision whether or not to issue process on the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. (v) The functions under the general power of attorney cannot be delegated to another person without specific clause permitting the same in the power of attorney. Nevertheless, the general power of attorney itself can be cancelled and be given to another person.

published in   http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40769  REPORTABLE   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 1 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 73 OF 2007   A.C. Narayanan …. Appellant(s) Versus State of Maharashtra & Anr. …. Respondent(s) WITH 2 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.2724 of 2008)   Shri G. Kamalakar …. Appellant(s) … Continue reading

NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER = The deceased objected to the appellant beating the dog, whereupon the appellant started abusing the former and told him to keep quiet or else he too would be beaten like a dog. The exchange of hot words, it appears, led to a scuffle between the deceased and the accused persons in the course whereof, while accused Nos.2 and 3 beat the deceased with fist and kicks, the appellant hit the deceased with the iron pipe on the head. On account of the injury inflicted upon him, the deceased fell to the ground whereupon all the three accused persons ran away from the spot. = whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the appellant has been rightly convicted for the capital offence and if not whether the act attributed to him would constitute a lesser offence like culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I or II of the I.P.C.= In the result, we allow this appeal but only to the extent that instead of Section 302 IPC the appellant shall stand convicted for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years. The fine imposed upon the appellant and the default sentence awarded to him shall remain unaltered. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms in modification of the order passed by the Courts below. A copy of this order be forwarded to the Registrars General of the High Courts in the country for circulation among the Judges handling criminal trials and hearing appeals.

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No.6287 of 2011) Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad …Appellant Versus State of Maharashtra …Respondent J U D G M E N T T.S. THAKUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of a judgement … Continue reading

Wakf Act, 1995: s.83(5) – Wakf Tribunal – Power of – HELD: Wakf Tribunal is deemed to be a civil court and has the same powers as are exercised by civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure while trying a suit or executing a decree or order – Civil courts are competent to issue injunctions in terms of Or. 39, rr. 1 and 2 and s.151 CPC – Similar orders can, therefore, be passed by the Wakf Tribunal also in suits that are legally triable by it – If the Wakf Tribunal, upon consideration of relevant facts and circumstances, comes to the conclusion that a case for grant of interim injunction has been made out, it shall be free to issue any such injunction – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. 39, rr. 1 and 2 and s.151 – Injunctions. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 492 of 2003. From the Judgment & Order dated 24.01.2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRP No. 1430 of 2001. K.V. Viswanathan, B. Ragunath (for Vijay Kumar) for the Appellants. K. Ramamoorthy, Hari Shankar K., Vikas Singh Jangra for the Respondents.

SYED MOHIDEEN & ANR. v. RAMANATHAPURA PERIA MOGALLAM JAMATH & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 492 of 2003) JULY 21, 2010 [MARKANDEY KATJU AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] 2010 (8) SCR 777 The following order of the Court was delivered ORDER The application for substitution is allowed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal has been … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,870,165 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,904 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com