Case Law

    Dishonour of Cheque

    1) Dishonour of cheque — Held, court is empowered to take cognizance even after prescribed period but only if complainant satisfies the court that he had sufficient cause for not making complaint within the prescribed period, K.S. Joseph v. Philips carbon Black Ltd.,  2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 322(SC).

     

    2) Dishonour of cheque — Power to take cognizance without complying with s.200 of Cr.P.C. and examining the complainant on solemn affirmation is available, K.S. Joseph v. Philips Carbon Black Ltd., 2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 322(SC).

     

    3) Revision petition -- Second revision petition against dismissal of complaint for non-appearance of complainant in dishonour of cheque is not maintainable, V.K. Bhat  v. G. Ravi Kishore, 2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 267(SC).

     

    Bail

    Bail -- Held, at the stage of bail, the Court is not to threadbare analyse the evidence furnished by the prosecution — That exercise will only be done after the witnesses have been examined in the trial court, Preeti v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),  2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 313(Del).

    Property

    1) Co-parcenary property — What is — Held, a property becomes co-parcenary if the same is received by way of succession from a father, father’s father and father’s father’s father, Chawali Devi v. Chhabil Dass, 2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 259 (P&H).

     

    2) Property — Sale and transfer of property made by guardian in violation ofHindu Minority and Guardianship Act — Recovery of possession in case of, scope and requirement for — Held, when once a transaction takes place in the name of the minor which is in contravention of the 1956 Hindu Minority Act and which is not done for legal necessity,such transaction is voidable and unless such a transaction is sought to be impeached or set aside, the question of recovery of possession of that property does not arise, Babasaheb v. Narayan, 2016(2) RLR 354(SC).

     

    3) Adverse possession -- A lessee cannot set forth a plea of adverse possession, Orissa Olympic Association Thr. General Secretary v. State of Orissa,  2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 468(SC). 

     

    4) Murder and dacoity — Proof required for proving, scope — Held, in order to bring home the guilt of accused persons, it is the duty of prosecution to prove that stolen property was in the possession of accused persons or that accused had knowledge that property was a stolen property or the accused persons had converted the stolen  property, State of Uttar Pradesh v. Iqbal, 2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 527(SC).

     

    5) Mesne profit — Quantum of, dimensions of premises, determination of — Held, admissions and omissions at every stage of the suit, prior to the determination of mesne profits, foreclose any debate as to the dimensions of suit property --  Furthermore, in a later stage, the same litigant cannot be allowed to set up an entirely different case, in order to escape or lighten its liability, India Tourism Development Corporation v. Anil Kumar Khanna, 2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 636(Del).

     

    6) Will -- Tenant have no locus standi to challenge the Will by virtue of which property had been bequeathed in favour of landlord, Godavari Devi Jaswani v. Suresh Chand Jain, 2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 269(Del).

    Evidence

    1) Electronic evidence — Translated version, when unreliable — Held, where voice recorder is itself not subjected to analysis, there is no point in placing reliance on the translated version, Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan v. Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke, 2016(2) RLR 406(SC).

     

    2) Evidence of complainant — Corroboration of, necessity of, scope — Held, complainant shall be treated as an accomplice and therefore, his evidence shall be corroborated in material particulars before placing reliance thereupon, Sukhdeep Singh v. CBI, 2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 589(P&H).

    Suit

    Suit for specific performance — Locus standi to file, in whom lies  — Held, suit for specific performance can be filed by “any party” to the contract, Delhi Development Authority v. Gaurav Kukreja, 2016(2) RLR 326(SC)

    Interpretation of Statues

    Interpretation of Statutes — Decisive factors for — Inconvenience and hardship to a

    person will not be the decisive factors while interpreting the provision, Babasaheb v. Narayan, 2016(2) RLR 354(SC).

    Defamation

    Defamation — Allegation of, pleading required from plaintiff in case of, scope — Held, plaintiff must set forth the exact words (spoken or written) which the plaintiff alleges to be defamatory, for the reason the defendant must know exactly what

    to defend, Arun jaitley v. Ashutosh, 2016(2) RLR 445(Del).

    Court Fee

    Court fee -- Held, deficiency in court-fee in respect of plaint can be made good during

    the appellate stage, Gurpreet Singh v. Tajender Singh Ghambhir, 2016(2) RLR 383(SC).

    Motor Vehicle

    1)Driving licence — Suspension of -- In cases where Suspension Order has already been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing under Section 19(1) of the MV Act, and the license holder seeks a personal hearing, held, there is no impediment in the Motor Licensing Officer giving a fresh opportunity of hearing and passing a revised order, Department of Transport  v. Ashish Gosain, 2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 362(Del).

     

    2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Sections 19(1)(a) to (h) & 200 — Suspension

    of driving licence after compounding of offence — Validity of, double jeopardy, what

    is not — Held, suspension of a licence under Section 19 is not dependent upon the

    compounding of offence by accused. There is no merit in the petitioners plea that the suspension of a licence after thecompounding of the offence would amount to double jeopardy, Department of Transport  v. Ashish Gosain, 2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 362(Del).

    Framing of Charge

    Framing of charges -- At the time of framing charge, on the basis of material place

    before it Court has to consider whether there exists strong suspicion or not, Kunal Singh v. CBI, 2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 497(Del)

    Compensation

    Compensation by accused to victim — Held, before awarding the compensation, it is the duty of the Court to take into consideration the financial position of the accused-appellant to pay the amount of compensation, Harkishan v. State of Punjab, 2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 554(P&H).

    Torts

    1) Torts — Medical negligence — Vicarious liability on account of, scope — Held, hospital is vicariously liable for the acts of its doctors and state is also vicariously liable for the damages which may become payable on account of negligence of its doctors or other employees, State of Tamil Nadu v.  V. Krishnakumar, 2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 623(SC).

     

    2) Torts — Medical negligence — Compensation, method for calculation of, principle of restitutio in integrum, scope — Held, an application of principle of restitution in integrum is that the aggrieved person should get that sum of money, which would put him in the same position if he had not sustained the wrong, State of Tamil Nadu v. V. Krishnakumar, 2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 623(SC).

    Legislation

    Legislation — Striking down of — Court cannot merely on a hypothetical situation strike down a provision disregarding the actual facts in which the challenge has been mounted, Union of India v. Vikram Singh @ Vicky, 2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 561(SC).

    Corruption

    Corruption -- Nervous accused — Chances to receive bribe from stranger, determination — Held, a person who had become nervous would not have ventured to receive bribe in thepresence of a stranger, Sukhdeep Singh v. CBI, 2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 589(P&H)

    Sentence

    Sentence — Power to prescribe quantum of, in whom lies and scope and judicial review — Prescribing punishments is the function of the legislature and not the Courts’ -- Courts show deference to the legislative will and wisdom and are slow in upsetting the enacted provisions dealing with the quantum of punishment prescribed for different offences, Union of India v. Vikram Singh @ Vicky, 2016(2) Rajdhani Law Reporter 561(SC).

    Arrest

    Constitution of India -- Article 21 -- Arrest by Police -- Necessity of Transparency -- Police atrocities -- Custodial -- Preventive Measure, while making arrest lay down, and directions given to police to follow the same at the time of arrest -- Criminal Procedure Code,1973 -- Sections 41,42,43,44,49,50,56,57,58 & 59 -- Arrest -- guidelines for making arrest, D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal WP(Cr) 539/1986, Decided on 18.12.1996.

Enroll Now

7 + 9 =
Subscribe to Our NewsLetter