DEFAMATION — No scope for filing application under Section 156(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure to seek investigation in a non-cognizable offence of a private nature like defamation and machinery in such like cases can be set in motion only after a complaint is filed by aggrieved person under Section 200 of Code of Criminal Procedure. DISTINCTION — Hypothecation and Pledge — Hypothecated goods need not be in physical possession of bank — They may remain under actual physical possession of borrower to enable borrower to carry on its actual operations — Execution of a deed of hypothecation in favour of bank constitutes constructive delivery of pledged goods to bank even though actual possession is not given to bank [200 (2013) DLT 748] Agreement to sell - Specific performance - Possession not delivered though mentioned in the agreement - Not a ground to deny relief of specific performance. 2013(3) Civil Court Cases 325 (Allahabad) Dishonour of cheque - Notice - Complainant working abroad - Instructions can be given to counsel over telephone or in writing or through electronic media, to issue notice. 2013(3) Civil Court Cases 395 (Kerala) Compromise - To be in writing - Not required when defendant satisfies the plaintiff in respect of whole or part of the subject matter of the suit. 2013(3) Civil Court Cases 296 (S.C.) Gift deed - When the executant himself admits the execution, there is no need for calling of any other attestors to prove the same. 2013(3) Civil Court Cases 539 (A.P.) registration - Sale deed :--Registration - Sale deed executed in the year 1996 but registered in the year 2008 - Law does not require that a sale deed must be registered on the same day on which it was executed. 2013(3) Civil Court Cases 374 (A.P.) Will - Absence of specific denial - Genuineness has still to be proved and further to dispel all suspicious circumstances. 2013(3) Civil Court Cases 310 (Kerala) Right of accused to be examined by medical practitioner Sec 54 Right of accused to consult a legal practitioner Article 22(1) Sec 303 Right of accused not to be detained more than 24 hours with out judicial scrutiny Article 22(2) sec 57 Right of accused to be taken before a magistrate with out delay Sec 56, 76 Dishonour of Cheque — Territorial Jurisdiction: -III (2013) BC 536 (Delhi HC) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 138 — Dishonour of Cheque — Territorial Jurisdiction — If cheque is presented by payee at a place other than drawee Bank, Court at the place of payee’s Bank simply on presentation of cheque will not have jurisdiction to entertain complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. Execution of bond by accused Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Section 437A — Execution of bond — Since no consequence on failure of execution of bond under Section 437A, Cr.P.C. has been provided it is practically not possible for Court to insist execution of bond by accused under Section 437A before conclusion of trial or before disposal of appeal, as the case may be. [ II (2013) BC 267 Second Revision: Second Revision — Bar under Section 399(2), Cr.P.C. interdicting a person from having a further challenge by second revision before High Court, does not foreclose his right to assail such order under Section 482, Cr.P.C. II (2013) BC 235 COPARCENER CANNOT SELL ANCESTRAL PROPERTY COPARCENER CANNOT SELL ANCESTRAL PROPERTY GOT AFTER PARTITION ,UPON BIRTH OF A SON-SUPREME COURT ROHIT CHAUHAN v. SURINDER SINGH & ORS (15 July 2013 It is now well settled in view of several decisions of this Court that the property in the hands of a sole coparcener allotted to him in partition shall be his separate property for the same shall revive only when a son is born to him. A person, who for the time being is the sole surviving coparcener as in the present case Gulab Singh was, before the birth of the plaintiff, was entitled to dispose of the coparcenary property as if it were his separate property. Gulab Singh, till the birth of plaintiff Rohit Chauhan, was competent to sell, mortgage and deal with the property as his property in the manner he liked. Had he done so before the birth of plaintiff, Rohit Chauhan, he was not competent to object to the alienation made by his father before he was born or begotten. But, in the present case, it is an admitted position that the property which defendant no. 2 got on partition was an ancestral property and till the birth of the plaintiff he was sole surviving coparcener but the moment plaintiff was born, he got a share in the father’s property and became a coparcener. As observed earlier, in view of the settled legal position, the property in the hands of defendant no. 2 allotted to him in partition was a separate property till the birth of the plaintiff and, therefore, after his birth defendant no. 2 could have alienated the property only as Karta for legal necessity. It is nobody’s case that defendant no. 2 executed the sale deeds and release deed as Karta for any legal necessity. Hence, the sale deeds and the release deed executed by Gulab Singh to the extent of entire coparcenary property are illegal, null and void. SICA — Abatement of Legal Proceedings — Protection or immunity granted under Section 22(1) is not absolute — Secured creditors would have right to take action in a manner provided by third proviso to Section 15(1), so as to abate proceedings. III (2013) BC 423 (Madras HC) (FB) illegal construction Cases reported in (2013) 5 SCC Part 2 – June 14, 2013 Dipak Kumar Mukherjee v. Kolkata Municipal Corpn., (2013) 5 SCC 336 (Civil Appeal No. 7356 of 2012, decided on October 8, 2012): Illegal/Unauthorised constructions, affect planned development of the area meant for public benefit, cause public hazard and violate fundamental rights of other citizens. Hence, demolition of illegal construction of multi-storeyed building in violation of sanctioned plan and Municipal Corporation Act and Municipal Corporation Building Rules, directed Termination of Tenancy 200 (2013) DLT 206 (DB) TRANSFER OF PROPERTY — Termination of Tenancy — Month-to-month lease — Notice — As per amended Section 106, T.P. Act, 15 days notice for termination is required in case of month-to-month tenancy — Earlier requirement that notice period must end with month of tenancy has been deleted.
Posted on: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 17:54:08 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015