April 2019

Chargesheet—Supplementary Challan—Without permission of court—Police has right to file supplementary challan of its own for bringing the entire evidence on record which was earlier omitted but was part of original challan

By | April 12th, 2019|Categories: Challan|

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37–Injunction–Release Deed—Plaintiffs, daughters, were 4th generation in lineage-Any release deed in respect of suit property executed by Karta, who proved to be ancestor can always be challenged during his life time.     

By | April 2nd, 2019|Categories: Specific Relief Act|

In order to establish claim with regard to nature of the property being ancestral, it has to be prima facie proved that the plaintiff was 4th generation in lineage and his father had acquired the same from his grandfather-Mere recital in the lease deed would not clothe the status of the property being ancestral even though supported by revenue records-Hindu Succession Act, 1956.   

By | April 2nd, 2019|Categories: Hindu Succession|

March 2019

“Marusi” would be an authorised occupant and “Gair Marusi” unauthorised-The Legislation in its wisdom has framed the Act for conferring the title of an occupant tenant and not unauthorised-It is also matter of law of common knowledge and equity

By | March 30th, 2019|Categories: Revenue Cases|

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Partition-Oral partition without causing entry in the revenue record or the records of the revenue authority would not confer joint ownership.         

By | March 29th, 2019|Categories: Specific Relief Act|

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.34–Suit for Possession-Plaintiff is in possession—Claim by defendant no.2 on being licensee—As per revenue records ownership lies with panchayat—In the absence of any grant by original licensee, subsequent licensee cannot be branded as a licensee

By | March 29th, 2019|Categories: Specific Relief Act|

Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.498-A–Cruelty to Wife–Quashing–Framing of Charges—The FIR can still be quashed even after the charges have been framed if it is found that the allegations in the FIR are absurd and inherently improbable and cannot be taken at the face value and accepted in its entirety

By | March 28th, 2019|Categories: Quashing|

Agreement to Sell-No evidence has been led to believe the thumb impression or circumstances as to how they appeared on the agreement to sell-No sane person, on receipt of the notice of the plaint, would sit idle, rather would make all efforts in case there is an attempt of forgery on the part of the opposite party-No such effort has been made in this case, therefore, adverse inference of the receipt of amount towards the security loan is the correct appreciation

By | March 28th, 2019|Categories: Specific Relief Act|

Agreement to Sell-Refund of earnest money—After non execution of sale deed on target date, due to illness of purchaser, seller sold land to third party—But there was exchange of communication immediately after the expiry of target date which establishes that party had intention to purchase—Court rightly directed refund of earnest money

By | March 28th, 2019|Categories: Specific Relief Act|

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.I R.10-Impleadment of Necessary Party-­Violation of Copyrights-Suit for injunction and rendition of accounts— Impleadment of Indian subsidiary company as necessary party along with foreign parent online search company held to justified—Role of Indian arm of foreign company to be adjudicated during trial—Copyrights Act, 1957

By | March 26th, 2019|Categories: Impleading Party to Suit|

Specific Relief Act, 1963, S.37–Permanent Injunction-Public Street-­ Encroachment ~A person who seeks equity must do equity—If at all, there was some encroachment on behalf of the appellant, he should have removed the same and then sought the injunction—In the absence of the same, and the courts below had no other option but to dismiss the suit

By | March 26th, 2019|Categories: Injunction|

Amendment of Plaint-New Facts-­ Several new facts sought to be introduced with regard to the details of such property—Held; Such amendments, to fill up gaps in his case, cannot be allowed especially when the reason given by the petitioner for seeking the amendment is a clerical mistake which is not found from the record- Application dismissed.         

By | March 20th, 2019|Categories: Amendment of Plaint|

Hindu Succession Act, 1956, S.6–Inherited Property—Self Acquired property-­ Property inherited by Class-I heir from his father as per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would be his individual property and would not be ancestral property or joint Hindu family property.

By | March 20th, 2019|Categories: Hindu Succession|

Bail-Habitual Offender- NDPS-Petitioner is involved in 3 more cases under NDPS Act- -Keeping in view that petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence and was not arrested; he is on bail in two cases except the present one; and it would be a symbolic release as the petitioner is undergoing sentence in other case and would be released only after suspension of his sentence in that case—Bail granted in present case

By | March 20th, 2019|Categories: Bail - Narcotics|

Bail–Habitual Offender–NDPS–Petitioner has been acquitted in one case and is on bail in another case under NDPS Act—In present case, submission that no independent witness was joined and form No.29 was not filed up at the spot—Without commenting on merits and keeping in view that petitioner is in custody from last about 21 months, bail granted

By | March 19th, 2019|Categories: Bail - Narcotics|