Fortnightly Newsletter, May 01, 2018


May 01, 2018

Important Decisions by the Supreme Court

SC: No Land Acquisition without Giving Objector Opportunity of Being Heard

Case name: Shiv Singh & Ors. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & ors.


In this case, the Appellant objected to the land acquisition by respondent State. However, the concerned Collector in the case did not give any opportunity of being heard to the objector.

Thus, the Supreme Court while allowing the appeal stated that that it is mandatory on the part of the Collector to comply with the procedure prescribed under Section 15(2) of the Act so as to make the acquisition proceedings legal and in conformity with the provisions of the Act

Read more here.

SC: Storing Adulterated Food for Making Food for Sale is Punishable u/Food Adulteration Act

Case name: Delhi Administration v. Vidya Gupta

In the case, the Supreme Court has categorically held that by virtue of explanation to Section 7  of the Food Adulteration Act if a person stores any adulterated food for the purpose of manufacturing from it any article of food for sale, he shall be deemed to store adulterated food.

Read more here.

SC: Mere Abduction of Woman does not Establish Offence u/Sec 366 of IPC

Case name: Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani v. The State of Maharashtra & ors.

In the case, the Apex Court while expounding the law underlying Section 366 of Indian Penal Code has stated that to establish an offence under Section 366 of IPC mere finding that a woman was abducted is not enough, it must further be proved that the accused abducted the woman with the intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse.

Read more here.

SC on whether Arbitration Agreement can be Binding on Non-Signatory to the Agreement

Case name: Cheran Properties Limited v. Kasturi and Sons Limited and Ors.

In the case while deciding the issue whether a non-signatory to an arbitration agreement is bound by the same or not, the Apex Court has held that that in certain situations, an arbitration agreement between two or more parties may operate to bind other parties as well. The Court’s observation was that the fact that the appellant was not a party to the arbitral proceedings will not conclude the question as to whether the award can be enforced against it on the ground that it claims under a party.

Read more here.

SC:  Only Unmarried Daughter of Coparcener can Claim Partition in Ancestral Property

Case name: Mangammal @ Thulasi and Anr. v. T.B. Raju & Ors.

While deciding this case, the Supreme Court made reference to Section 29A introduced by the Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu) Amendment Act of 1990. The Court stated that the effect of the said provision has been taken away in respect of daughters married before the commencement of Hindu Succession (Tamil Nadu) Amendment Act 1989 which came into force from 25.3.1989.

The Court noted that on a plain reading of Section 29-A of the Act, it is evident that, inter-alia, daughter of a coparcener ought not to have been married at the time of commencement of the amendment of 1989. In other words, only un-married daughter of a coparcener is entitled to claim partition in the Hindu Joint Family Property.

Read more here.

SC Sets Aside Family Court Order Awarding 15 lakhs as Permanent Alimony to Wife

Case name: Jalendra Padhiary v. Pragati Chhotray

In this case, the Supreme Court has taken a strong note of permanent alimony of Rs. 15, 00,000/- awarded to the respondent wife by the Family Court which was subsequently also affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The Court stated that the award passed by the Mower Courts were unreasoned.

The Bench stated that the Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case, which must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings recorded based on appreciation of evidence on all the material issues arising in the case.

Supreme Court’s Recent Verdict on Circumstantial Evidence

Case name: Navaneethakrishnan v. The State by Inspector of Police

Read more here.

SC: Plaintiff can’t Claim Specific Performance and Permanent Injunction in same Suit

Case name: Sucha Singh Sodhi (D) Thr. LRs. v. Baldev Raj Walia & Anr.

plaintiff could not claim the relief of specific performance of agreement against In the case, the Two-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court categorically stated that the the defendants along with the relief of permanent injunction in the previous suit.

Read more here.

Decision by the High Courts

Raj HC: Cancel Driving License of Drivers Using Mobile Phones

In a recent case, the High Court of Rajasthan taking note of glaring circumstances of drivers using mobile phones while plying vehicles has directed the concerned authorities in the State to forward such cases to the concerned RTO, whereby the RTO shall cancel the driving license after giving the driver opportunity of being heard.

Read more here.

Delhi HC Issues Directions for Notice of Appearance before Police Officer

Case name: Amardeep Singh Johar v. State of NCT of Delhi

In the case, the seminal issue pertained to Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure Code. The intrinsic issue being that statutory requirement as enumerated under Section 41A of Code of Criminal Procedure was not duly followed by the Police Officers in the case.

Section 41A of the CrPC provides for notice of appearance before Police Officer. It states that the police officer shall issue a notice directing the person against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or a reasonable suspicion exists that he has committed a cognizable offence, to appear before him or at such other place as may be specified in the notice.

Taking a serious note of the alleged prevailing situation, the Delhi High Court in order to curb such cases has issued directions for the working of Section 41A.

Read more here.

Delhi HC: Directs Parents to Compensate Daughter for Violating her Fundamental Rights

Case name: Dr. Sangamitra Acharya & Anr. v. State of NCT of Delhi

In this first of its kind case, the Delhi High Court has directed the parents of a 23-year old daughter to compensate the daughter for violating her fundamental right to livelihood and liberty guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Delhi High Court also observed that Section 41 (1) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (cessation of authority of guardian) provides that the powers of the guardian automatically cease upon the minor ceasing to be as such[1]. She could decide whom she wanted to live with and where. Her parents could not have dictated to her where, with whom and how she should live.

Read more here.

Bombay HC Directs Family Court to Arrange for Divorce Consent via Skype

In this technologically advanced world, the Indian Courts are not leaving any stone unturned to utilize cyber age facilities towards simplification of otherwise complicated and lengthy court proceedings. Bombay High Court’s recent order in the case of Harshada Bharat Deshmukh v. Bharat Appasaheb Deshmukh is a testimony to same.

In this case, the Bombay High Court has directed the Family Court to arrange for the consent terms of Divorce to be recorded either through Skype or by adopting any other technology.

Read more here.

Kathua Rape Case: Delhi HC Imposes Penalty on Media for Revealing Victim’s Identity

In a path breaking move the Delhi High Court has directed media houses to deposit Rs. 10 lakh each as compensation towards revealing the identity of the Kathua rape case victim. Here it would be relevant to mention that the Delhi High Court in its April 13 order had taken a suo motu cognizance of the case and had condemned the Media houses for revealing the identity of Kathua Rape case victim and also issued notice in this regard to the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting.

Read more here.

Delhi HC Issues Guidelines to Courts for Bail of Prisoners

Case name: Ajay Verma v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi

The petitioner in the case had raised a critical issue pertaining to inability of the prisoners to furnish bail bonds in terms of the orders granting bail to them and were, therefore, languishing in prisons for a long period of time despite orders of bail in their favour.

Taking a serious note of the condition of such prisoners, the Delhi High Court issued guidelines to the Trial Courts for ensuring that conditions of bail are met.

Read more here.

Bombay HC: Dying Declaration can’t be Rejected on Ground that it wasn’t Read Over to Declarant

Case name: Ganpat Bakaramji Lad v. State of Maharashtra

In this case, the Full Bench of Bombay High Court has rendered an in-depth analysis of the law relating to and the essentials of a dying declaration. In the case, in view of divergence of opinion, the seminal issue that was raised was Whether a Dying Declaration can be rejected merely because the same is not read over to the declarant and the declarant admitting the same to have been correctly recorded?

The Court in the case observed that a dying declaration cannot be rejected merely because the same is not read over to the declarant and the declarant admitting the same to have been correctly recorded. We hold and clarify that this can be one of the factors, if it assumes significance in the facts and circumstances of any case.

Read more here.