April 2019

Issue involved in this matter is whether Section 143-A introduced by the Amendment Act No.20 of 2018 in the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 has retrospective application or not?As an interim measure, we direct the petitioner to deposit the sum, namely 15% of the cheque amount

By | April 21st, 2019|Categories: Cheque Bounce|

Provisions of Section 143 A of Negotiable Instruments Act inserted by Amendment Act, 2018 being substantive are prospective in nature – Cannot apply to pending cases.   All provisions relating to punishment, execution, fine and compensation and recovery as contained in Cr.P.C has to be read in conjunction and in harmony with Section Section 143 A of Negotiable Instruments Act. Amendment in Section 148 NIA apply to pending proceedings

By | April 21st, 2019|Categories: Cheque Bounce|

Appellants 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

By | April 17th, 2019|Categories: Co-operative Societies Act|

Hindu 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

By | April 17th, 2019|Categories: Punjab Rent Act|

IMPORTANT::: 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”

By | April 17th, 2019|Categories: Bail - Cancellation|

Transfer 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.     

By | April 17th, 2019|Categories: Transfer of Property Act|

Hindu 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. 

By | April 17th, 2019|Categories: Maintenance|

Civil 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.

By | April 17th, 2019|Categories: Exparte Decree|

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.20 and S.42- -Bail–NDPS–Accused person were apprehended during Nakabandi– Secret information was not recorded in writing and was not sent to police station for registration of FIR–Bail granted

By | April 13th, 2019|Categories: Bail - Narcotics|

Narcotic 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

By | April 12th, 2019|Categories: Bail - Narcotics|

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

By | April 12th, 2019|Categories: Bail - Narcotics|

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|