Legal Reference Library

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. Agreeing with reversal of acquittal by the high court, the apex court bench comprising Justice Pinaki Chandra Ghose and Justice Ashok Bhushan observed that the information of murder was received before 17.35 hours at the police station, which is fully proved

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. The Court observed that the Parliamentary legislation being dominant, the provisions of Tripura Act which prohibits the bank from transferring the property which has been mortgaged by a member of a scheduled tribe to any person other than a member of a scheduled tribe, would be invalid. The Bench comprising Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justice

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 Responde

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 doubt

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 were st

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 services pr

Attributing ‘culture of compromise’ as one of the reasons for witnesses turning hostile during trial, the Supreme Court in Ramesh vs. State of Haryana, has upheld a High Court judgment that reversed an acquittal recorded by the trial court in a murder case. The high court, while convicting one Ramesh and others for murder of his wife, had observed that certain prosecution witnesses, which includes father and brother of the deceased, had turn hostile and have been won over by the accused. The high court held that a dying declaration is a substantive piece of evidence and can be made the basis of conviction once the court is convinced that dying declaration is made voluntarily and is not influenced by any extraneous circumstances. Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/culture-compromise-makes-witnesses-turn-hostile-trials-sc/

A division bench of High Court of Kerala recently reversed a single bench’s ruling that allowed individual flat owners to seek separate water connections. This writ appeal (W.A. No. 1556 of 2016) filed by Kerala Water Authority had come up for admission on 27-10-2016 against the judgment dated 28.3.2016. The division bench of Chief Justice Mohan M Shantanagoudar and Justice Sathish Ninan held that only a common connection could be obtained for the entire apartment complex. By the impugned judgment, the single judge had directed the appellants to consider the application filed by the writ petitioners in terms of Regulation 7(d) of the Kerala Water Authority (Water Supply) Regulations, 1991, allowing them individual domestic connection. The single bench had said individual flat owners could not be directed to apply for the entire apartment complex in terms of Regulation 7(g) as they were seeking only separate connections to individual apartments owned by each one of them and not a common

The Supreme Court in Amarsang Nathaji vs. Hardik Harshadbhai Patel, has said the mere fact that a person made a contradictory statement in a judicial proceeding was not by itself always sufficient to justify prosecution under Sections 199 and 200 of the Indian Penal Code. The apex court said it must be shown that the defendant has intentionally given a false statement at any stage of the judicial proceedings or fabricated false evidence for the purpose of using the same at any stage of the judicial proceedings. It also explained the procedure contemplated under Section 340(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. These observations were made by a Bench of Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice RF Nariman in an appeal against an order by Gujarat High Court wherein it had directed the Registrar (Judicial) to make complaint against a litigant in view of the findings recorded by the court for the offence under Sections 199 and 200 of the IPC. The high court had observed that the conduct of the lit

The Supreme Court in Golla Rajanna vs. The Divisional Manager, has held that the high court cannot reassess the percentage of disability recorded by a Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner as it is a pure question of fact and the scope of the appeal before the high court under Section 30 of the workmen’s compensation Act is only to substantial questions of law. Re-appreciating the evidence recorded by the Commissioner, the high court held that the disability would only be to the extent of 5% of the whole body, resulting in 5% of the loss of earning capacity. On appeal, a bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice RF Nariman observed that under the scheme of the Act, being a welfare legislation, the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner is the last authority on facts and scope of the appeal is restricted only to substantial questions of law. Setting aside the high court judgment, the court observed: “Unfortunately, the high court has missed this crucial question of limited jurisdict

In JINDAL STAINLESS LTD.& ANR VS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS,  the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the vexed questions touching the interpretation of Articles 301 to 307 comprising Part XIII of the Constitution which have been the subject matter of several Constitution Bench decisions of this Court, all but one, decided by majority. The questions assume in a great measure considerable public importance not only because the same deal with the powers of the State legislatures to levy taxes but also because any pronouncement of this Court is bound to impact the federal character of our polity and the Centre-State relationship in legislative and fiscal matters. ORDER By majority the Court answers the reference in the following terms: 1. Taxes simpliciter are not within the contemplation of Part XIII of the Constitution of India. The word ‘Free’ used in Article 301 does not mean “free from taxation”. 2. Only such taxes as are discriminatory in nature are prohibited by Article

In Sonoma Management Partners Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bank of Maharashtra, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court found that the amount of sales tax was not disclosed to the final auction buyer till after the sale of the asset has been completed. Further the amount due from the defaulting company cannot be claimed from the auction purchaser can by no stretch of the imagination be termed as a successor of the business of the Defaulter Company. The Hon'ble court said that in State of Karnataka & Anr Vs. Shreyas Papers Pvt. Ltd., (2006) it has been held that  a charge may not be enforced against a transferee if she/he has had no notice of the same, unless by law, the requirement of such notice has been waived. The Hon'ble court also mentioned the newly amended Sections 26D & E of the SARFAESI Act which states :- " 26D. Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, from the date of commencement of the provisions of this Chapter, no secured credi

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a criminal complaint u/s 498A, 323, 406 & 504 of the IPC and 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, while exercising its powers under Section 482 CrPC, against the parents of the deceased husband due to want of specific instances of domestic violence. Speaking through Justice PK Vohra, the court was seized of a petition filed in 2011 against a complaint filed by a woman in 2010 seeking protection under the DV Act and punishment under IPC. The complainant had entered into a marital set-up with her husband in 1994 and had been living separate from the in-laws since 1995. The complaint filed by the complainant wife assailed the husband, his parents and her sister-in-law alleging vague domestic violence. The husband expired during the proceedings and the trial court proceeded against the other three. The high court held that the precise object of the Act of 2005 is to protect a woman against domestic violence and in appropriate cases, she is als

The Rajasthan High Court in Geeta Singh vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr dismissed the DV application of Geeta Singh, filed under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 claiming interim monetary relief to her daughter Geetanjali. One of the reliefs sought is that respondent may be directed to pay 700 pounds per month as living expenditure as she was pursuing higher studies at Cardiff University, England. Geetanjali’s father contended he had borne all the school and college education expenses for his daughter and even took care of educational and all other expenses for her higher studies at Nottingham, England. The question involved was whether the unmarried daughter, who has already completed her post graduation from a reputed university in India like Delhi University and who also pursued her further studies at Nottingham, England, in 2009, is an aggrieved person within the meaning of the Act, and if yes, whether she can claim interim monetary relief as he

The Supreme Court in Harpal Singh @ Chhota Vs. State Of Punjab, has reiterated that any electronic record in the form of secondary evidence cannot be admitted in evidence unless a certificate under Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act is produced. In the instant case, the prosecution had produced printed copy of the computer generated call details kept in usual ordinary course of business and stored in a hard disc of the company server, to co-relate the calls made from and to the cell phones involved, including those, amongst others, recovered from the accused persons. However, a certificate relatable thereto as required under Section 65B (4) of the Evidence Act was not adduced. The high court held that the evidence is admissible. On appeal, though the conviction recorded by the trial court and high court was upheld, the bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice Amitava Roy, referring to Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and others, observed that as the prosecution had relied upon secon

The High Court of Orissa on Tuesday held that for maintaining proceedings under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is not necessary for the woman to have lived in a shared household with the accused at the time of making an application to the Magistrate. Justice S.K. Sahoo observed, “For subjecting a woman to any act of domestic violence as defined under section 3 of the P.W.D.V. Act and maintaining an application under section 12 of the P.W.D.V. Act, it is not necessary that the woman concerned must be living with the respondent under one roof or in a shared household at the time of presenting the application to the Magistrate.” The Court was hearing a challenge to an order passed in July this year by the Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, upholding the maintainability of the proceedings initiated by the wife under the DV Act. The maintainability of the proceedings were challenged, among other things, on the ground that there existed no “domestic rela

In  Sasi Thomas v. State , (2006) 12 SCC 421, fairness of investigation is held to be an important facet of the rule of law. The  Supreme Court  has, in this regard, observed as follows:- Proper and fair investigation on the part of the investigating officer is the backbone of rule of law. A proper and effective investigation into a serious offence and particularly in a case where there is no direct evidence available assumes great significance as collection of adequate materials to prove the circumstantial evidence becomes essential. #  Investigation This is a case of Murder of wife by husband obtaining of false certificate from doctor certifying heart-failure as the cause of death and buried the dead body. Brother of deceased filing complaint raising suspicion about the cause of death. Dead body exhumed. Post mortem report reveals that she died of insecticides poisoning. Final report stating that deceased committed suicide. Challenge to High Court directing CB-CID to co

Lack of Moonlight : In Nathuni Yadav v. State of Bihar, (1998) 9 SCC 238 Apex Court observed that under what circumstances the lack of moonlight or artificial light does not per se preclude identification of the assailants. See Also: Md. Guljan @ Md. Gulshan Vs. State of Bihar [Patna High Court, 28-10-2016] It was noted as follows: Even assuming that there was no moonlight then, we have to gauge the situation carefully. The proximity at which the assailants would have confronted with the injured, the possibility of some light reaching there from the glow of stars, and the fact that the murder was committed on a roofless terrace are germane factors to be borne in mind while judging whether the victims could have had enough visibility to correctly identify the assailants. Over and above those factors, the assailants were no strangers to the inmates of the tragedy-bound house, the eyewitnesses being well acquainted with the physiognomy of each one of the killers. Therefore, not p

Section 468 of the  Indian Penal Code, 1860  provides punishment for committing forgery with intention of using the forged document for the purpose of cheating. Thus, the first requirement of this provision is to commit forgery. Section 463 IPC defines forgery in the terms that “whoever makes any false document……, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.” Thus, from the definition of forgery it is apparent that making a false document is the first requirement to commit forgery. A full bench of Supreme Court in  Ram Narayan Popli v. CBI , (2003) 3 SCC 641, had occasion to deal with the ingredients of forgery and while dealing with this question, the court observed as follows :- “The first essential is that the accused should have mad

In Sheela O.K. Vs. New India Insurance Company, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court decided that When an insurer is impleaded as a party-respondent to the claim petition, as contrasted from merely being a noticee under Section 149(2) of the Act, its rights are significantly different. If the insurer is only a noticee, it can only raise such of those grounds as are permissible in law under Section 149(2). But if he is a party-respondent, it can raise, not only those grounds which are available under Section 149(2), but also all other grounds that are available to a person against whom a claim is made. If the insurer is already a respondent, having been impleaded as a party-respondent, it need not seek the permission of the Tribunal under Section 170 of the Act to raise grounds other than those mentioned in Section 149(2) of the Act.

It is well-known that the proof of wills presents a recurring topic for decision in courts and there are a large number of judicial pronouncements on the subject. The party propounding a will or otherwise making a claim under a will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and, in deciding how it is to be proved, we must inevitably refer to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. #  Will Sections 67 and 68 of the  Evidence Act  are relevant for this purpose. Under Section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Sections 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one a

The Calcutta High Court, while allowing the appeal of a rape accused in Belal @ Radheshyam Mondal vs. The State of West Bengal, has held that mere error in mentioning the date of occurrence at the time of framing charge cannot vitiate the trial under Section 464 of CrPC and, thus, cannot be a ground to invalidate the trial. Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track, Malda, had convicted accused Belal for committing offence under Section 376 of IPC, sentencing him to suffer imprisonment of 10 years and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000 in default to suffer imprisonment for one year. In the trial court charge was framed against two accused (the other accused was acquitted by the court) for committing gang rape upon the victim girl. The father of the victim girl lodged the FIR at Baishnab nagar Police station informing that his 15-year-old daughter was returning home from the house of his next door neighbour Raj Kumar Mondal, when both the accused gagged her mouth by cloth and took her to the

The Supreme Court in President J.K. Synthetics Mazdoor Union, Kota vs. Arfat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd., has reiterated that the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) has no competence to issue directions under Section 22A of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985, to a company that is not a sick industrial company. Certain directions like not to dispose of the assets were issued by the BIFR against M/s Arafat Petrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. (APPL), which was affirmed by Appellate Authority for Industrial and Financial (AAIFR). The said order was set aside by the Rajasthan High Court holding that the BIFR and the AAIFR do not have jurisdiction to issue directions to a company, which is not a sick industrial company under Section 22 A of the Act. On an appeal, the apex court bench comprising Justice Anil R Dave and Justice L Nageswara Rao, referring to UP State Sugar Corporation Ltd vs UP State Sugar Corporation Karamchari Association and Anr., observ

The Supreme Court in HP State Electricity Board Ltd vs Mahesh Dahiya, has observed that in disciplinary proceedings, before making opinion with regard to punishment which is to be imposed on a delinquent, the delinquent has to be given an opportunity to submit representation/reply on the inquiry report which finds a charge proved against the delinquent. A bench comprising Justice SA Bobde and Justice Ashok Bhushan made this observation while upholding a high court judgment setting aside the punishment order on a delinquent employee charged with willful absentation from official duty and disobeying the directions of the superiors. On the facts of the case, the court observed that before forwarding the copy of the report, the disciplinary authority had already formed an opinion to punish the delinquent with major penalty. The bench said that a delinquent employee is entitled to point out any defect in the procedure, a defect of substantial nature in appreciation of evidence, any misleadi

In State of Bihar Vs. Maharana Pratap Singh, the Hon'ble Patna High Court while setting aside the decision of a single judge bench held that the learned Single Bench appears to have exercised appellate jurisdiction over findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, which is impermissible in law, since, while exercising the power of judicial review, only the decision-making process has to be examined and not the merit and demerit of the finding recorded by the Disciplinary Authority. The Court cannot re-appreciate the merits of allegation levelled against the charged officer and return a finding that the same is not made out. Govt. of A.P. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan (2006) 2 SCC 373 SCC p. 379, para 11.)” 9. In a recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran reported as (2015) 2 SCC 610, the Court held to the following effect:- “12. Despite the well-settled position, it