LAW OFFICE ONLINE

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; S. 166 -- As to whether the owner has taken reasonable care to find out as to whether the driving licence produced by the driver (a fake one or otherwise), does not fulfil the requirements of law or not will have to be determined in each case.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; -- Whether limitation in filing the complaint under the DV Act, 2005 is one year – Held: In case of subsisting relatiohship of husband and wife, there is no limitation. Meaning thereby that the complaint under the D.V. Act, can be filed at any time as the physcical and mental harassment within the family is a continuing offence.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; -- Whether complaint under D.V.Act, is maintainable where a case under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code is already pending? – Held: It is held that both proceedings are of different nature and can be filed separately. In this case the proceedings under the D.V Act, can continue on the same set of facts of a case under Section 406, 498-A IPC.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; After purchase an overseas travel insurance policy the Petitioner was underwent Coronary Bypass Graft Surgery and thereby spent 12,005 pounds -- Respondent repudiated the reimbursement and taken plea that the complainant have past medical history of hypercholestremia, Ischaemic Heart Disease as well as hypertension, which were excluded as per the insurance contract -- District Forum directed the Company to pay an amount of Rs.7,19,500/- for medical score with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of complaint till the date of payment and also to pay Rs.2200/as litigation expenses.” -- State Commission allowed the same on appeal on the ground that complainant had obtained insurance policy by concealing the factum of his previous ailment, namely, hypertension, which has a nexus with the heart problem -- Revision allowed by NCDRC in favour of Claimant with observation that plea of concealment of material fact was not taken by the opposite party in the repudiation letter -- no evidence shown that the petitioner despite of having knowledge of his ailment concealed this fact in proposal form -- having history of hypertension does not lead to conclusion that petitioner was also having previous history of heart problem – heart problem cannot be termed as a claim in respect of a pre existing disease.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 ----- Whether during pendency of Divorce Suit the wife has right to reside at her husband’s residence ----- Wife has been residing at a rental accommodation ----- She is employed ----- Held: once a matrimonial suit has been filed, the wife has no right to have a force entry in the house of her husband against his will if she is provided with maintenance by the husband ----- Allegation that the wife tried to enter the house of the husband forcibly with the help of the local people -----Held: The sole object of the respondent was to frustrate the suit by contending that she had been staying in the same room as husband and wife and she has actually taken such plea in this proceeding ----- We, however, do not believe such assertion of the wife after taking into consideration the fact that the she has initiated proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code during the pendency of the suit and all the members of the family were arrested ----- No reasonable person will believe the statement of the wife that the husband is staying with her notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case where charge has been framed and he is an accused person along with other members of the family.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 7 R. 11 – What to consider while Rejection of plaint – Held: Court is required to consider the pleadings made out in the plaint itself and the annexures thereto for ascertaining as to whether the plaint is liable to be rejected on any of the grounds as mentioned therein -- Court cannot consider any other document and/or material beyond the pleadings made out in the plaint and/or annexures thereto.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 7 R. 11 – Whether the plaint as a whole can be rejected when part of the plaintiff’s claim can be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court -- Absence of independent cause of made the plaint liable to be rejected in whole.

West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006; S. 102 -- Suit challenging wrongful termination of the building contract -- Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected as it is barred under the provision contained in Section 102 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 – In absence of any contradiction it can be assumed that the business of housing co-operative society is of constructing dwelling units for its members -- the dispute between the plaintiff and the Cooperative Society concerns the business of the said Cooperative Society and it relates to the affairs of the said Cooperative Society and such dispute is a dispute within the meaning of the dispute under Section 4(25) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 which is capable of resolution by the Registrar as per the provision of Section 102 of the said Act -- the Civil Court as per the provision of Section 102 (4) of the said Act.

Agreement ----- Whether conditions printed at back of rent receipt constitute agreement between landlord and tenant?

Held: it cannot be said on the basis of what is printed on the back side of the rent receipt that the parties had accepted it as a condition of the lease. The rent receipt is a document issued by the landlord acknowledging receipt of payment of rent by him. Conditions printed at the back of rent receipt cannot be said to be a conscious decision taken by the parties governing the lease of premises. Terms and conditions of a lease result from conscious decision of parties.

Limitation Act, 1963; S. 6 and 8; Limitation Act, 1963; Art. 60 -- The starting point of limitation is the attaining of majority by the ward and the period of limitation is three years -- the alienation was effected in 1953 and the period of 12 years should be calculated from that date. Section 6 of the Limitation Act provides that a person entitled to institute a suit is at the time from which the prescribed period is to be reckoned, a minor, he may institute the suit within the same period after the disability has ceased, as would otherwise has been allowed from the time specified therefore in the third column of the schedule. Section 8 provides that nothing in Section 6 applies to suits to enforce rights of pre-emptions, or shall be deemed to extend for more than three years from the cessation of the disability, the period of limitation for any suit.

General Clauses Act, 1897; S. 27 -----  Evidence Act, 1872; S. 114 -----
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882; S. 138 ----- Whether it is necessary to state that the notice issued under Section 138 of the NI Act by the complainant was served upon the respondent-accused on any specific date ----- Held: since the NI Act does not require that notice should only be given by ‘post’ in a case where the sender has despatched the notice by post with correct address written on it, Section 27 of the GC Act could be profitably imported and in such a situation service of notice is deemed to have been effected on the sender unless he proves that it was really not served and that he was not responsible for such non-service ----- Section 114 of the Evidence Act enables the Court to presume that in the common course of natural events, the communication would have been delivered at the address of the addressee.

Evidence Act, 1972 – Appreciation of Evidence – Behaviour of witnesses – Held: the reactions of these witnesses in running away from the site of occurrence appears to be a natural human reaction under the facts and circumstances of the case. Behaviour of the witnesses or their reactions would differ from situation to situation and individual to individual. Expecting uniformity in their reactions would be unrealistic, and no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the uniformity of the human reaction. The evidence of the three eyewitnesses cannot be faulted merely because they ran away;

Maxim -- Falsus In Uno, Falsus In Omnibus -- (false in one thing, false in everything) is not being used in India. Virtually, it is not applicable to the Indian scenario. Hence, the said maxim is treated as neither a sound rule of law nor a rule of practice in India. Hardly, one comes across a witness whose evidence does not contain a grain of untruth or at any rate exaggerations, embroideries or embellishments. It is the duty of the Court to scrutinise the evidence carefully and, in terms of felicitous metaphor, separate the grain from the chaff. But, it cannot obviously disbelieve the substratum of the prosecution case or the material parts of the evidence and reconstruct a story of its own out of the rest. Efforts should be made to find the truth. This is the very object for which Courts are created. To search it out, the Court has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust, as all these things clog the very truth. So long as chaff, cloud and dust remain, the criminals are clothed with this protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So, it is a solemn duty of the Courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicions are created. It is the onerous duty of the Court, within permissible limits to find out the truth. It means, on one hand that no innocent man should be punished, but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should go scot free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused. The evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness and once the same stands satisfied, it ought to inspire confidence in the mind of the Court to accept the evidence.

Constitution of India; Art. 14 and 21 -- Recognition of third gender –

Held: the Court upheld transgender persons’ right to self-identify their gender. The Constitution requires equal treatment of all people regardless of their gender identity or expression. The Court declared that the Centre and State governments must grant legal recognition of gender identity as male, female or third gender. A full recognition is to be given even in the absence of any existing statutory regime. Additionally, the Court declared that educational, social and health care issues faced by transgender people must be addressed both at the centre and state government levels.