April 2019
Permalink GalleryAppellants cannot be deprived of a plot allotted to her merely on the basis that she has not made any grievance in respect of possession of the plot allotted on the basis of technicities. If such allotment is found to be made, the appellant would be entitled to possession of the plot of 250 sq. yards. If it is found that the plot allotted to the appellant is not available, the Registrar or its delegate shall pass such necessary order to redress the grievance of the appellant after giving an opportunity of hearing to the affected persons
Permalink GalleryHindu Succession Act, 1956 – Sections 14, 14(1) and 14(2) – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – Sections 2(c) and 2(i) – Eviction – High Court while setting aside the judgment of the first appellate Court held that Shiv Dev Kaur (having life interest in property) had created a tenancy in favour of the defendant and the relationship of landlord and tenant did not cease to exist on her death. The remedy of the appellants as owners was to seek eviction under prevailing rent control legislation and not by means of a suit for possession
Permalink GalleryIMPORTANT::: Bail—Cancellation of—Before passing such an order, the Magistrate is required to afford accused an opportunity to explain as to why bail should not be cancelled Forfeiture of Bail bonds—Mere failure to appear before the court, in the absence of any willfulness on the part of the accused, would not amount to “a breach”
Permalink GalleryTransfer of Property Act, 1881, S.60–Redemption of Mortgage-Doctrine of Severability-Sale of share by co-sharer-Contention that by applying the doctrine of severability, redemption of the property which was not sold, should have been ordered-Contention rejected-Held; an appropriate remedy for the plaintiffs was to seek partition as alongwith defendants/subsequent vendees, who were the mortgagees had acquired the title of co-ownership-Doctrine of severability cannot be applied in such circumstances as the mortgage deed has to be read as whole and cannot be split.
Permalink GalleryHindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.24–Maintenance-Reduction of–Income of Wife- Wife herself is earning Rs.10,600/- per month whereas husband is earning Rs.26,OOO/- per month-Wife is entitled to same amenities had she staying with her husband-Award of Rs.5,OOO/- as maintenance pendente lite reduced to Rs.4,OOO/ – per month.
Permalink GalleryCivil Procedure Code, 1908, O.9 R.13–Exparte Decree-Setting aside of— Limitation to file the application is 30 days from the date of passing of ex parte judgment and decree or acquisition of knowledge—In present case, application was filed after 2 years of exparte decree-One of other defendants had earlier filed application but was dismissed—Thus, it is highly improbable that applicant was not in the knowledge of exparte judgment and decree- Application held to be rightly dismissed.
Permalink GalleryNarcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.50–Personal Search–Bail–Investigating officer himself gave notice and after obtaining consent, he himself conducted the search of petitioner and without calling a second investigating officer conducted further investigation—Without commenting on merits bail granted
- Permalink Gallery
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.36-A-Statutory Bail—Commercial Quantity-Extension of time for filing charge sheet- Merely because report of chemical examiner/FSL is awaited and investigation of other persons arrested during interim period is to be affected is not a ground for detention of petitioner beyond the period of 180 days
Permalink GalleryIn 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.
March 2019
- Permalink Gallery
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