Legal Reference Library

If there are more than one dying declarations in a case, the courts should satisfy themselves as to which one reflects the truth, the Supreme Court has said. "In cases where there is more than one dying declaration, it is the duty of the court to consider each one of them in their correct perspective and satisfy itself that which one of them reflects the true state of affairs," a bench of justices Abhay Manohar Sapre and Ashok Bhushan said while putting the curtains down in the 27-year-old case. The observation came in a case in which prosecution had relied on the dying declaration of the victim who in her first two statements had accused her lover of setting her ablaze after she asked him to marry her. In her third statement, she had resiled. The apex court refused to interfere with the findings of the trial court and the Bombay High Court, which had convicted and sentenced accused Raju Davade by relying on two of the three dying ...

Two Unitech   Ltd Managing Directors, Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra, were awarded three years' imprisonment for non-compliance of order issued in 2015 by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CSCDRC). The punitive measure was awarded after the real estate giant failed to give possessions of a residential unit in Mohali to two Delhi-based clients even after making the payment on time. Then, the commission sought explanation from the builder and asked them to settle dues of Rs 53 lakhs. Two Unitech Ltd Managing Directors, Ajay Chandra and Sanjay Chandra, were awarded three years' imprisonment for non-compliance of order issued in 2015 by the Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (CSCDRC). Read more at: http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/current-affairs/unitech-mds-get-3-yrsjail-as-company-fails-to-deliver-flats_6453641.html?utm_source=ref_article

The apex consumer commission has directed real-estate major Unitech Limited to pay over Rs 60 lakh to a Gurgaon resident for not giving him possession of an apartment booked a decade ago at Greater Noida. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) asked the firm to pay the amount with an interest of 18 percent per annum, from the date the total demand amount was deposited with the Unitech, which is also facing several other complaints, including a joint claim by 144 home-buyers. A bench headed by Justice J M Malik held that the desire to acquire the property had "ruined the life" of the buyer and the real estate major "harassed" him by asking "for interest on the delayed payment when there was no progress of project". The consumer commission directed the firm to pay Rs 59,98,560 to Sanjay Arora, who had booked the flat in Sector Pi II, Greater Noida, in 2006, besides Rs one lakh for compensation and litigation charges. "As a matter of...

The apex consumer commission slapped a penalty of 12 percent per annum on real estate major DLF Ltd to be given to 50 buyers for delaying giving possession of their flats in its Panchkula project in Haryana, saying it amounted to "cheating". The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) bench headed by Justice J M Malik directed the firm to hand over the apartments to buyers as per a list proposed by DLF for scheduled possession, failing which it will have to pay a penalty of Rs 5,000 per flat per day to the buyers till the project is completed. The bench noted that the firm had to give the possession of the property within three years including the grace period from the date of letter of allotment till possession was to be given by 2013. After this, it will have to pay interest till the period it has now proposed before the commission, it said. If the flats are not given till the period now proposed by the firm, it will carry a penalty of Rs 5,000 per day till ...

In a recent case, the district consumer disputes redressal forum directed the postmaster, Manimajra Post Office to refund Rs 29,042 and pay compensation of Rs 20,000 for failing to safely deliver a parcel sent by the sector 37-based complainant through speed post. The forum was of the view that a departmental inquiry should be conducted to ascertain why the parcel reached its destination in a tempered state. In his complaint, Ripan Kumar alleged that he sent medicines worth Rs 29,042 to Critical Drugs Agency, Imphal, Manipur through speed post vide receipt dated June 4, 2015. T he parcel, he said, reached Imphal on June 12, 2015 in a tampered condition after which authorities at the Imphal post office sent a report to the agency. During checking, it was found that the medicines ordered were missing. Thereafter, the parcel was returned to Ripan with a letter saying it was open when received. In its reply, the post master admitted that the speed post article weighing 5,880 grams was bo...

Delhi High Court has held that when a deaf and dumb witness is under cross-examination, the Court is required to take due care of the fact that vocabulary of such a person is limited as he or she speaks through sign language and it may not be possible for that witness to answer, or in detail explain every answer by sign language and this disability of a limited vocabulary of sign language does not affect either the competence or the credibility of such witness. Justice Mukta Gupta has made the above observation while disposing an Appeal filed by Accused convicted for the offence defined under Section 9(k), punishable under Section 10 of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2002, for sexually assaulting a 12 yr old deaf and dumb girl. The twin arguments raised by Counsel for the appellant are that since the prosecutrix could not be cross-examined her testimony cannot be read in evidence and even if the offence is proved against the appellant, the same would fall under Se...

 Arbitral Proceedings will not come under the expression “other proceedings” of Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act, the Court held. The Supreme Court in M/s Umesh Goel vs.Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Group Housing ociety Ltd. has held that the expression “other proceedings” in Section 69(3) of the Partnership Act does not include Arbitration Proceedings and the ban imposed under the said Section to can have no application to Arbitral proceedings as well as the Arbitration Award.Division Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justices Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla and C. Nagappan, allowing the appeal against the High Court judgment, also held that Section 35 and 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act,1996 is specifically restricted to treat the Award as a decree of a Court and does not equate Arbitration proceedings with court proceedings. BACKGROUND The Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the appeal filed under Section 37 of the Act took a view that the counter claim in a...