//
archives

Small claims court

This tag is associated with 15 posts

The plea relating to applicability of the stare decisis principles is clearly unacceptable. The decision in K. Chinnathambi Gounder (supra) was rendered on 22.6.1979 i.e. much prior to the amendment by the 1984 Act. If the Legislature intended to give a new lease of life in those cases where the declaration under Section 6 is quashed, there is no reason why it could not have done so by specifically providing for it. The fact that legislature specifically provided for periods covered by orders of stay or injunction clearly shows that no other period was intended to be excluded and that there is no scope for providing any other period of limitation. The maxim ‘actus curia neminem gravabit’ highlighted by the Full Bench of the Madras High Court has no application to the fact situation of this case. 17. The view expressed in Narasimhaiah’s case (supra) and Nanjudaiah’s case (supra), is not correct and is over-ruled while that expressed in A.S. Naidu’s case (supra) and Oxford’s case (supra) is affirmed. 18. There is, however, substance in the plea that those matters which have obtained finality should not be re-opened. The present judgment shall operate prospectively to the extent that cases where awards have been made and the compensations have been =whether the acquisition of the appellant’s land lapsed on account of non-passing of an award within the period specified in Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, ‘the Act’). 2.The appellant’s land was acquired by the State Government for and on behalf of Tamil Nadu Housing Board. =.In our view, the last paragraph of the aforesaid judgment has no bearing on this case because at the time of pronouncement of Constitution Bench judgment, the writ petition filed by the appellant and the proforma respondents for grant of a declaration that the acquisition will be deemed to have lapsed due to non- making of award for two years was pending before the High Court. 15.Although, the Division Bench has referred to a large number of judgments which lay down the proposition that the High Court would not entertain belated challenge to the land acquisition proceedings but the impugned judgment does not contain any discussion on this issue. That apart, we find that the appellant and the proforma respondent had moved the High Court without any delay. Rather, they had filed writ petition immediately after pronouncement of the award. Therefore, they could not

1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.8643 OF 2011 (Arising from SLP(C) No.27254/2008) R.Indira Saratchandra …Appellant versus State of Tamil Nadu & others …Respondents J U D G M E N T G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the acquisition … Continue reading

Income Tax Act, 1961: Chapter XXC; s.269UA(f)(i), Explanation – Premises let out on lease for nine years with an option to the lessee to renew it for a further period of nine years on fulfillment of certain terms and conditions – Applicability of Explanation to s.269UA(f)(i) – Held: Is applicable since lease provided for extension of term, and the aggregate of lease period and period of extension counted together made it more than twelve years. Deeds and documents: Lease deed – Interpretation of – Held: The terms of a lease deed are not to be interpreted following strict rules of construction – One term of the lease cannot be taken into consideration in isolation – Entire document in totality has to be seen to decipher the terms and conditions of lease. Interpretation of statutes: Penal statute which makes an act a penal offence or impose penalty – Held: Is to be strictly construed and if two views are possible, one favourable to the citizen is to be ordinarily preferred. The appellants leased out the suit premises for a period of nine years and the lease was renewable for a further period of nine years. The income tax department issued a show cause notice alleging that the lease was for a period of more than 12 years and, therefore, the provision of Chapter XXC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was attracted. The appellants replied that the lease was only for a period of nine years and that the lease deed provided an option to the lessee to renew the lease for a further period of nine years and, therefore, the provision of Chapter XXC of the Act was not attracted. The appropriate authority rejected the reply of the appellants and held them guilty of not complying with the provisions of Section 269UC of the Act. Accordingly, a complaint was laid under Section 267AB read with Section 278B of the Act before the Magistrate. The Magistrate took cognizance of the offence. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the same in the High Court. Aggrieved, the appellants filed the instant appeal. =Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. A plain reading of the Explanation to Section 269UA(f)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 shows that if a lease provides for the extension of the term thereof by a further term, it shall be deemed to be a lease for a term of not less than twelve years, if the aggregate of the period for which the lease is granted and period of extension counted together makes it more than twelve years. There is no dispute in regard to the interpretation of Explanation to Section 269UA(f) of the Act and it will cover only such cases where provision for extension in lease deed exists. The terms of lease deed are not to be interpreted following strict rules of construction. One term of the lease cannot be taken into consideration in isolation. Entire document in totality has to be seen to decipher the terms and conditions of the lease. In the instant case, Clause 1 of the lease deed in no uncertain terms provided for extension of period of lease for a further period of nine years and clause 12 thereof provided for renewal on fulfillment of certain terms and conditions. Therefore, when the document is constructed as a whole, it is apparent that it provides for the extension of the term. If that is taken into account, the lease is for a period of not less than twelve years. Once it is held so, the Explanation to Section 269UA(f)(i) is clearly attracted. The High Court rightly observed that the conjoint reading of clauses 1 and 12 of the lease deed showed that the lessor intended the lease to last for 18 years and the lessor could not have refused to renew/extend the lease after first term if the lessee complied with the conditions. [Paras 6, 7] [529-b-d] Provash Chandra Dalui and another v. Biswanath Banerjee and another (1989) Supple.(1) SCC 487; State of U.P. and others v. Lalji Tandon (Dead) through Lrs. (2004) 1 SCC 1; Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. v. Hede and Company (2007) 5 SCC 614 – referred to. 2. It is well settled that the penal statute which makes an act a penal offence or impose penalty is to be strictly construed and if two views are possible, one favourable to the citizen is to be ordinarily preferred but this principle has no application in the facts of the present case. [Para 7] [530-F] Case law reference: (1989) Supple.(1) SCC 487 referred to Para 4 (2004) 1 SCC 1 referred to Para 4 (2007) 5 SCC 614 referred to Para 4 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 41 of 2004. From the Judgment & Order dated 10.10.2002 of the High Court of Delhi in Criminal Misc. (Main) No. 3793 of 2001. Harish N. Salve, P.K. Aggarwal, Sanjay Kapur, Rajiv Kapur for the Appellants. Ramesh P. Bhatt, Rahul Kaushik, B.V. Balaram Das for the Respondent.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.41 OF 2006 M/S. GOVIND IMPEX (P) LTD. & ORS. …. APPELLANTS VERSUS APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ….. RESPONDENT JUDGMENT CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD, J. 1. Appellants are the owners of property bearing No.B-68, Greater Kailash, Part-I, New Delhi and they let out … Continue reading

Criminal Trial-Framing of Charges-Allegation of misappropriation of huge amount of Government money-Revision Petition challenging the framing of charges-Dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held-Per Katju, J.: There was sufficient material to frame the charge, hence not interfered with-Per Sinha, J. : There is lacuna in framing of charges-But the same not interfered with because trial has reached the stage of examination of witnesses and there is likelihood of early disposal of the matter-Penal Code, 1860-s. 420 r/w ss. 120-B, 429, 468 and 471-Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Trial Court framed charges against the appellant-accused and co-accused u/s 420 r/w ss. 120-B, 429, 468 and 471 IPC and various provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Allegations were that six bogus firms claiming to have published advertisements, submitted 76 bogus bills worth Rs.30,30,057/- for payment by signing under fictitious names. The bills had not been entered in bill register and no file had been opened in respect of these firms. The file numbers written on the fictitious bills were also fake. Out of the 76 bills, 14 (pertaining to ad-hoc advertisement) were dishonestly processed by the appellant-accused and co-accused. All the bills were filled by another co-accused who was neither posted in the publicity division nor was he authorized to do so. Appellant-accused was also not the incharge of ad hoc advertisements. None of the bills bore initials or signatures of the incharge of the ad hoc advertisements. The bills were also not sanctioned / approved by the competent authority. The Revision Petition challenging the order of trial court, was dismissed by High Court. Hence the present appeals.

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 710 of 2007 PETITIONER: Soma Chakravarty RESPONDENT: State Through CBI DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/05/2007 BENCH: S.B. Sinha JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 710 OF 2007 [Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 552 of 2006] S.B. SINHA, J : 1. Although I entirely agree with … Continue reading

LAND REVENUE ACT = “Thus it is settled law that normally a decree passed by a court of competent jurisdiction, after adjudication on merits of the rights of the parties, operates as res judicata in a subsequent suit or proceedings and binds the parties or the persons claiming right, title or interest from the parties. Its validity should be assailed only in an appeal or revision as the case may be. In subsequent proceedings its validity cannot be questioned. A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction over the subject-matter or on other grounds which goes to the root of its exercise or jurisdiction, lacks inherent jurisdiction. It is a coram non judice. A decree passed by such a court is a nullity and is non est. Its invalidity can be set up whenever it is sought to be enforced or is acted upon as a foundation for a right, even at the stage of execution or in collateral proceedings.” “Bapi Patta” cannot be granted to the appellants therein inasmuch as the aforesaid land falls within the catchment area of feeder canal of Kaliberi and, therefore, the patta was cancelled on 19.07.1942. Inasmuch as the land in question was being utilized as catchment area of potable

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOs. 1585-1586 OF 2005 State of Rajasthan & Ors. …. Appellant (s) Versus Jeev Raj & Ors. …. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P. Sathasivam, J. 1) These appeals arise from the final judgment and order dated 14.10.2003 passed … Continue reading

Shri Shivlal Verma (husband of appellant No.1, father of appellant Nos. 2 and 3 and son of Shri Swaminath and Smt. Tulsi Devi) died in an -MULTIPLIER IS 17

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6480 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 951 of 2010) Urmila and others … Appellants Versus Rashpal Kaur and others … Respondents J U D G M E N T G.S. Singhvi, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Feeling dissatisfied with the enhancement … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,873,445 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

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

Join 1,905 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com