//
archives

Law

This tag is associated with 111 posts

Sec.36 and sec. 173 of Cr.P.C. – Whether the station officer alone has got right to submit final report under sec.173 (2) but not other superior officers ? = STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. … APPELLANTS VERSUS LALU SINGH …RESPONDENT = Reported in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40913

Sec.36 and sec. 173 of Cr.P.C. – Whether the station officer alone has got right to submit final     report under sec.173 (2) but not other superior officers  ? Apex court held wrong and set aside this observation made by high court  and distinguished the  observation made by Apex court judgement M.C.Mehta  (Taj Corridor Scam) v. … Continue reading

Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act – Apex court set aside the orders of conviction and confirmed the lower court acquittal orders – Joginder Singh … Appellant Versus State of Haryana …Respondent – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40895

Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and under Sections     25 and 27 of  the  Arms Act – Duty of High court while reversing  the acquittal judgement based on sound principles – not to be disturbed  with out settling the issues on material aspects  – Non- examination … Continue reading

Liability of directors under sec.141 – there must be specific pleadings against the accused to fasten liability under sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act – A.K. SINGHANIA … APPELLANT VERSUS GUJARAT STATE FERTILIZER CO. LTD. & ANR. …RESPONDENTS judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40882

Liability of directors under sec.141 – there must be specific pleadings against the accused     to fasten  liability under sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act  High court quashed the complaint– Apex court confirm the same   =         Section  141  of  the  Act  makes  the  Directors  in  charge  and   responsible to Company “for the … Continue reading

sec. 67 NDPS ACT and sec.25 of Evidence Act – whether the Officer are Police Officer and whether the officers can record a confessional statement from the Accused by force= TOFAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40880

sec. 67 NDPS ACT and sec.25 of Evidence Act – whether the Officer are Police Officer and whether the officers can record a confessional statement from the Accused by force – due to conflict judgments- referred to larger bench. = In our view the aforesaid  discussion  necessitates  a  re-look       into the ratio … Continue reading

M.V. ACT – ACCIDENT CLAIM – NON- EXAMINATION OF PILLION RIDER NOT FATAL WHEN SUPPORTED BY I.O. EVIDENCE- F.I.R. – CHARGE SHEET ENOUGH TO PROVE NEGLIGENCE – DULCINA FERNANDES & ORS. Vs. JOAQUIM XAVIER CRUZ & ANR. judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40875

Accident claim – Registration of FIR and filing of charge sheet is enough to prove the negligence     of  opposite party who caused an accident – acquittal of criminal case can not be considered – Non- examination of pillion rider is also not fatal – when investigation officer supported the case – Apex court set aside … Continue reading

NO INTEREST SHOULD BE GRANTED FOR A ERLIER PERIOD SPENT IN WRONG COURT ‘Actus Curiae Neminem Gravabit’ No interest should be awarded ONGC LTD. Vs. M/S. MODERN CONSTRUCTION AND CO. published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40872

No interest shoudl be awarded – On presentation of a suit on the point of Jurisdiction after return under Or. VII, rule 10 C.P.C., Court should not grant interest from the date of filing of suit in earlier court as it is not presented on transfer. Hence any decree granting interest from the date of … Continue reading

Criminal conspiracy = Non – examination of witness whether fatal ? – GULAM SARBAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR (NOW JHARKHAND)- published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40871

Criminal conspiracy = Non – examination of witness whether fatal ?         How to prove criminal conspiracy =    The essential ingredients of  Criminal  Conspiracy  are     (i)  an agreement between two or more persons;    (ii) agreement must  relate  to         doing or causing to be done either    (a) an … Continue reading

power of state govt. in varying salary of constitutional appointee ; Binding nature of judgment = G.L. BATRA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40864

State Govt. is not competent to vary the remuneration fixed to the constitutional appointee ;     Earlier judgment of same bench is binding on the later bench of same quorum;       The earlier  judgment         may seem to be not correct yet it will have the binding effect on … Continue reading

Service matter – Section 59 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995= Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another …. Appellants Versus G. Sarvothaman …. Respondent = published in judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=40851

Service matter – Section  59   of   the   Persons   with   Disabilities   (Equal          Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act,  1995 the powers of chief commissioner =       whether  the         Chief Commissioner has got  the  powers  to  order  regularization  of   … Continue reading

Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’ for short). strike off defence as he failed to comply the orders and filed written statement belatedly -Apex court – yes = Rule 5 of Order XV, Code of Civil Procedure, was enacted by the U.P. Civil Laws (Amendment) Act, 1972 and the said Rule reads as follows: “5. Striking off defence for failure to deposit admitted rent.— (1) In any suit by a lessor for the eviction of a lessee after the determination of his lease and for the recovery from him of rent or compensation for use and occupation, the defendant shall, at or before the first hearing of the suit, deposit the entire amount admitted by him to be due together with interest thereon at the rate of nine per cent per annum and whether or not he admits any amount to be due, he shall throughout the continuation of the suit regularly deposit the monthly amount due within a week from the date of its accrual and in the event of any default in making the deposit of the entire amount admitted by him to be due or the monthly amount due as aforesaid, the Court may, subject to the provisions of sub-rule (2) strike off his defence. Explanation 1-3 * * * * (2) Before making an order for striking off defence, the court may consider any representation made by the defendant in that behalf provided such representation is made within ten days of the first hearing or, of the expiry of the week referred to in sub-section (1), as the case may be. (3) The amount deposited under this rule may at any time be withdrawn by the plaintiff: Provided that such withdrawal shall not have the effect of prejudicing any claim by the plaintiff disputing the correctness of the amount deposited: Provided further that if the amount deposited includes any sums claimed by the depositor to be deductible on any account, the Court may require the plaintiff to furnish the security for such sum before he is allowed to withdraw the same.”= suit for eviction of the respondent-defendant-tenant from the suit premises,= Inspite of receipt of notice, the respondent did not choose to file written statement within the specified period. After long delay, the respondent filed his written objection on 3rd April, 1999 against which the appellant-plaintiffs filed an application for striking off the defence on the ground that the respondent failed to deposit the rent, the damages due and the cost of the suit inspite of order dated 16th December, 1998, the first date of hearing and also failed to deposit water tax and house tax and thereby not complied with the provisions under Order XV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure (‘CPC’ for short).= In the present case, the Trial Court fully applied its mind while exercising its discretionary power to strike off the defence. The grounds were noticed, as mentioned at Paragraph 11 of the judgment passed by the District Judge and is quoted above. Learned District Judge exercising its revisional jurisdiction, affirmed the order passed by the Trial Court. The aforesaid judgment(s) cannot be said to be perverse nor can it be said that the courts below have exceeded or failed to exercise their jurisdiction. The power to strike off the written statement vested under Rule 5 of Order XV was exercised by the lower courts after going through the facts of the case. 16. Inspite of the aforesaid fact, we find that the High Court failed to give any ground while exercising its inherent power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge by impugned judgment observed that the Supreme Court has held that the Court has jurisdiction and discretion to accept the written statement even after expiry of 90 days from the date of service of summons on payment of heavy cost. Defendant has neither cited any decision nor shown any ground for acceptance of written statement even after expiry of 90 days from the date of service of summons on payment of heavy cost. The order passed by the Trial Court by exercising its discretionary power and the order passed by the Revisional Court affirming the Trial Court order were not perverse and both the courts below have not exceeded their jurisdiction. Hence, it was not open to the High Court to sit in appeal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to alter such finding of facts and to accept the written statement without any ground. 17. For the reasons aforesaid, we have no option but to set aside the impugned judgment dated 17th September, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No.44387 of 2007 and allow the appeal. The Trial Court is expected to decide the Suit No.17 of 1998 expeditiously as the matter is pending since long. No costs.

 published in     http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40706   REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7279 OF 2013 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.22265 OF 2007) BAL GOPAL MAHESHWARI & ORS. … APPELLANTS VERUS SANJEEV KUMAR GUPTA … RESPONDENT J U D G M E N T SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. Leave granted. This … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,474 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com