Month: January 2020

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) – Sections 96 and 100 – Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 52 – Right to property – Second Appeal – Appellants were not the parties to the suit nor in the regular appeal – High Court has held that insofar as the locus of the appellants, they being third parties had no right to challenge the judgment and order passed by the Lower Appellate Court HELDSubstantial questions raised have not been appropriately dealt with and answered the matter would require reconsideration by the High Court – Appeal disposed of.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH GAJARABA BHIKHUBHA VADHER AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. SUMARA UMAR AMAD (DEAD) THRU LEGAL HEIRS AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi,…

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 420, 467 and 468 – Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 45 – Forged signature – Indira Vikas Patra – Hand-writing expert – It is fairly well settled that before acting upon the opinion of the hand-writing expert, prudence requires that the court must see that such evidence is corroborated by other evidence either direct or circumstantial evidence

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH PADUM KUMAR — Appellant Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH — Respondent ( Before : R. Banumathi and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No.…

Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control), Act, 1965 – Sections 11(2), 11(3) and 11(4)(i) and 11(4)(ii) – Eviction – Sub-letting – A bare reading of sub-para (i) of sub-section (4) of Section 11 of the said Act leaves no manner of doubt that the cause arises upon the tenant transferring his rights under a lease and sub-lets the entire building “or any portion thereof”, if the lease does not confer on him any right to do so. Thus, sub-letting of any part of the tenanted premises gives right to eviction from the whole premises

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH K. LUBNA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. BEEVI AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and K.M. Joseph, JJ. ) Civil…

IMP: Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Sections 140, 166 and 166(1)(c) – Fatal motor accident – Compensation Whether the major sons of the deceased who are married and gainfully employed or earning, can claim compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988? Held:- YES claimants were working as agricultural labourers on contract basis and were earning meagre income between Rs. 1,00,000/­ and Rs. 1,50,000/­ per annum. In that sense, they were largely dependant on the earning of their mother and in fact, were staying with her, who met with an accident at the young age of 48 years.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED — Appellant Vs. BIRENDER AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005 – Sections 13, 13(1), 13(2), 13(1)(c), 13(1)(j), 14, 15 and 24 – Large scale trafficking of children – If the State Commission in such a case asks for assistance from the National Commission or some other State Commission where the child may have been illegally trafficked, the National Commission or the other State Commission(s) should cooperate with the Commission inquiring into the matter

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR PROTECTION OF CHILD RIGHTS AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. DR. RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta…

SC Directs States To Appoint Exclusive Public Prosecutors In POCSO Courts HELD – POCSO cases. Sub-Section 1 of Section 32 reads as follows: “Every State must by Notification appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for every Special Court for conducting cases only under the provisions of the Act.”

SC Directs States To Appoint Exclusive Public Prosecutors In POCSO Courts [Read Order] LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK 12 Jan 2020 6:47 PM “Public Prosecutors must be trained to deal with child…

Service Matters

Orissa Service Code, 1939 – Rule 72 – Departmental proceeding – Unauthorized leave overstay – In the present case, This Court are inclined to think that the respondent by remaining away from duty since 1991 to 1998 without producing contemporaneous medical record has not only been irresponsible and indisciplined but tried to get away with it by producing the certificate of a specialist Doctor who may not have treated the respondent.

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS — Appellant Vs. GANESH CHANDRA SAHOO — Respondent ( Before : D.Y. Chandrachud and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Temple Bye Laws — Oachira Parabrahma Temple — Ancient structure without a building or deity, governed by Bye-laws with three-tier elected committees — Appellants, elected Secretary and President, challenged two High Court orders (2020 and 2023) that removed their committee and appointed an unelected one under an Administrative Head, citing violations of the temple’s Bye-laws and customs —Legality of appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one contrary to the temple’s Bye-laws — Petitioner argues that the High Court overstepped its jurisdiction and violated the temple’s governance structure by appointing an unelected committee and removing the elected one without proper legal basis — The High Court’s actions were necessary for the efficient administration of the temple until a scheme could be framed and new elections held — The Supreme Court modified the High Court orders, appointing a new retired Judge as Administrative Head to conduct fair elections within four months, while directing all parties to cooperate — The Court emphasized the need to preserve temple properties and governance as per established customs and laws — The Supreme Court struck down the High Court’s order appointing an unelected committee, appointed a new Administrative Head to conduct elections, and directed all parties to cooperate, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the temple’s established governance structure and Bye-laws.