Latest Post

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 — Section 154 — Transfer of land in contravention of ceiling limit — Not void ipso facto — Capable of ratification — Legality of transfer to be judged by law on date of execution — Sale deed executed on 04.06.1957 — Ceiling limit then was 30 acres, subsequently amended to 12.5 acres retrospectively from 01.07.1952 — Transfer in contravention of Section 154 not void but voidable at instance of Gaon Sabha coupled with liability for ejectment of transferee under Section 163 — No suit filed for ejectment within limitation period. Specific Relief Act, 1963 — Section 16(c) — “Readiness and Willingness” — Relief of specific performance is equitable and discretionary — Plaintiff must specifically aver and prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform obligations — Failure to do so disentitles plaintiff to relief — “Readiness” refers to financial capacity, “Willingness” to conduct and intention — Both cumulatively must be seen — Conduct of plaintiff prior and subsequent to suit, along with attending circumstances, must be considered — Availability of funds must be proved with reference to relevant time, not by documents created much later. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 and 140 — Compensation for death in motor vehicular accident — Negligence — Truck stationed on road at night without warning lights or indicators — Wagon-R car collided from behind — Held, truck driver was negligent in leaving the vehicle unattended on the road without adequate precautionary measures, which was the proximate cause of the accident. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 166 — Motor Accident Claims Tribunal — Compensation — Enhancement — High Court enhanced compensation, but calculation of future prospects and omission of certain awarded amounts were infirmities — Supreme Court addressed these infirmities. Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 — Forgery and use of forged documents in judicial proceedings — Appeal confined to quantum of sentence, conviction upheld — Occurrence of offence in 2014, appellant facing proceedings for over a decade, no prior or subsequent criminal antecedents, forged document detected at early stage, no irreversible consequences — These factors warrant reconsideration of substantive sentence on grounds of proportionality and mitigating circumstances.

Disclosure Statement—The Court must ensure the credibility of evidence by police because this provision is vulnerable to abuse. Disclosure Statement—Cannot be discarded only on the ground that it was made to a police officer during investigation. Circumstantial Evidence—Inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused

  2007(2) LAW HERALD (SC)  968 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Lokeshwar Singh Panta Civil Appeal No. 311…

Whether withdrawal of O.A. in terms of the first proviso to Section 19(1) of the DRT Act, 1993 is a condition precedent to taking recourse to the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 ? NO. Whether ad valorem Court fee prescribed under Rule 7 of the 1993 is payable on an application of the NPA Act in the absence of any rule framed under NPA Act ? Yes. Whether recourse to take possession of the secured assets of the borrower in terms of Section 13(4) of the NPA Act comprehends the power to take actual possession of the immovable property.

  2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 927 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arijit Pasayat The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia Civil Appeal No. 3228 of…

Dishonour of Cheque–Offence by Company–Director of company should not automatically be vicariously liable for commission of an offence–There should be sufficient averments to show that the person who is sought to be proceeded against on the premise of his being vicariously liable for commission of an offence by the Company must be incharge and shall also be responsible to the Company for the conduct of its business.

2007(1) LAW HERALD (SC) 909 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Before The Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.B. Sinha The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Markandey Katju Criminal Appeal No. 664 of 2002…

You missed