March 2019

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|

Attempt to Murder–Bail~Habitual Offender–Improvement in other criminal cases—Petitioner is already on bail in five other cases—Petitioner is in custody for 1 year and 4 months—Injured and complainant have been examined but there are total 11 prosecution witnesses-Trial may take long to conclude—Without commenting on merits bail granted

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

Murder–Bail–Habitual offender-Attempt to Murder-Petitioner was involved in total 12 cases-He has been acquitted in 8 cases—Held; petitioner is in custody from last 3 and half years; no recovery was effected from him; there is no eye witness and all material witnesses have been examined-Without commenting on merits bail granted

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

Appeal—Court while deciding the appeal against the judgment and decree is not debarred from examining the correctness of the interim orders passed by the trial court or first appellate court against which the revision petition has been dismissed in limine Additional Evidence—Opportunity to lead additional evidence by way of secondary evidence ought to be given by trial court for proving the document which has already been exhibited

By | March 19th, 2019|Categories: Regular Second Appeal|

Bail–Habitual Offender-Commercial Quantity–NDPS–Keeping in view that petitioner is in custody for more than one year; in three cases including two cases under the NDPS Act, the petitioner is on bail and also the fact that all witnesses are the official witnesses and there is no possibility that the petitioner may influence the witnesses or tamper with the evidence—Bail granted—

By | March 18th, 2019|Categories: Bail - Narcotics|

Bail–Handing over the seal after use~NDPS~In a other case pending under the NDPS Act against the petitioner, the police official who was member of the raiding party in that case was given the seal used in present case, which is likely to prejudice the interest of the petitioner—Bail granted

By | March 18th, 2019|Categories: Bail - Narcotics|

Maintenance—Income of Wife—Even if, the wife is proved to have some earning, still the upbringing of the minor children would require healthy amount these days—Wife entitled to maintenance

By | March 16th, 2019|Categories: Maintenance|

Dishonour of Cheque—Blank Cheque—Subsequent filing in of an unfilled signed cheque is not an alteration. Dishonour of Cheque—Presumption of debt—The existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payee of a cheque and its drawer, would not disentitle the payee to the benefit of the presumption under Section 139.

By | March 16th, 2019|Categories: Cheque Bounce|

Primary Evidence—If the two original copies of the contract are prepared and signed by the parties, each copy would be primary evidence. Will—Suspicious Circumstances—Court is required to see whether the foundation of the suspicious circumstances has been laid in the pleading followed by evidence and the suit alleges suspicious circumstances are substantive and not based upon conjectures and surmises

By | March 15th, 2019|Categories: Will|