LAW OFFICE ONLINE

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 125 – Precondition for grant of maintenance -- Inability to maintain herself is the pre-condition for grant of maintenance to the wife -- The wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself, in addition to the fact that her husband has sufficient means to maintain her and that he has neglected to maintain her.

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (the Atrocities Act), S. 3(1)(ix), 3(2)(vi) and 3(2)(vii) read with 18 ------
Whether there is an absolute bar to the grant of anticipatory bail ----- unless exclusion of anticipatory bail is limited to genuine cases and inapplicable to cases where there is no prima facie case was made out, there will be no protection available to innocent citizens ----- Limiting the exclusion of anticipatory bail in such cases is essential for protection of fundamental right of life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution ----- exclusion of provision for anticipatory bail will not apply when no prima facie case is made out or the case is patently false or mala fide ----- protection of innocent against abuse of law is part of inherent jurisdiction of the Court being part of access to justice and protection of liberty against any oppressive action such as mala fide arrest

Constitution of India -------- Right to die ----- Held: (a) The right to die with dignity as fundamental right has already been declared by the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in Gian Kaur case (supra) which we reiterate. (b) We declare that an adult human being having mental capacity to take an informed decision has right to refuse medical treatment including withdrawal from life saving devices. (c) A person of competent mental faculty is entitled to execute an advance medical directive in accordance with safeguards as referred to above.

Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) -- Claim for reimbursement – Whether claim can be rejected as the Superspeciality hospital is not included in the Government Order – Held: The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order.

Limitation Act, 1877, section 17, 21, 22 --- Civil Procedure Code; Order 1 Rule 10. Order 22 Rule 4 and Sections 151 & 153 ---- Whether the legal representatives of deceased can be impleaded under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code where such defendant expired prior to the filing of the suit particularly when the application filed by the plaintiff to bring the legal representatives of the deceased on record under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code was dismissed earlier as not maintainable ---- Held: merely because the earlier application filed by the appellant under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code was dismissed on 09.09.2009 as not maintainable, it will not prohibit the plaintiff from filing another application, which is maintainable in law (Para 8) ---- Bo adjudication of the application to bring legal representatives on record on merits by virtue of the order dated 09.09.2009----- The order passed by the trial Court on the application filed under Order 22 Rule 4 of the Code, dated 09.09.2009, will not act as res-judicata----- Appeal allowed---- Trial Court is directed to implead the legal representatives of deceased.

Civil Procedure Code; Order 1 Rule 10, Order 22 Rule 4 and Sections 151 &153 ----- Merely because of the non mentioning of the correct provision as Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code at the initial stage by the advocate for the plaintiff, the parties should not be made to suffer----- Courts are meant to do justice and not to decide the applications based on technicalities (Para14)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; S.138 ---- Complainant and accused both are working in Government College ----- Both are governed by the Government Servants’ Conduct Rules which prescribes the mode of lending and borrowing ----- Nothing on record to show that the prescribed mode has been complied with ----- Disputes concerning the source of fund of the complainant ------ Non Disclosure of the amount to Income Tax authority though the complainant is a regular Assessee ----- Complainant did not produce Bank Statement ----- The trial court took into account the testimony of the wife of the complaint in another criminal case arising under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in which she has stated that the present appellant/accused had not taken any loan from her husband ----- Acquittal of accused confirmed.

Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996; S. 8 ----- Whether termination of agreement by one party on account of breach committed by the other can make the arbitration clause inoperative ----- Held: where an agreement is terminated by one party on account of the breach committed by the other, particularly, in a case where the clause is framed in wide and general terms, merely because agreement has come to an end by its termination by mutual consent, the arbitration clause does not get perished nor is rendered inoperative.
Arbitration And Conciliation Act, 1996; S. 8 ----- Whether termination of agreement by one party on account of breach committed by the other can make the arbitration clause inoperative ----- Held: the prerequisites for an application under Section 8 are fulfilled, viz., there is an arbitration agreement; the party to the agreement brings an action in the court against the other party; the subject matter of the action is the same as the subject-matter of the arbitration agreement; and the other party moves the court for referring the parties to arbitration before it submits his first statement on the substance of the dispute ----- the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain a suit afteran application under Section 8 of the Act is made for arbitration.

Limitation Act, 1963; S. 27— Limitation Act, 1963; Art. 65 and 66 -- Adverse Possession -- It is a settled principle of law of adverse possession that the person, who claims title over the property on the strength of adverse possession and thereby wants the Court to divest the true owner of his ownership rights over such property, is required to prove his case only against the true owner of the property -- It is equally well-settled that such person must necessarily first admit the ownership of the true owner over the property to the knowledge of the true owner and secondly, the true owner has to be made a party to the suit to enable the Court to decide the plea of adverse possession between the two rival claimants.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13  -  Whether the award of permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- by the Family Court to the respondent(wife) was legally and factually sustainable -- Held: It is really unfortunate that neither the Family Court nor the High Court kept in mind these legal principles and passed cryptic and unreasoned orders -- Such orders undoubtedly cause prejudice to the parties and in this case, it caused prejudice to the appellant(husband) because the orders of the High Court and Family Court deprived him to know the reasons for fixing the permanent alimony amount of Rs.15,00,000/- payable to his wife – Impugned order of the High Court and the order of the Family Court insofar as it relates to fixation of permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- are set aside.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 6 R. 17 ----- Amendment of plaint after a final decree is passed in a suit for partition ----- application for amendment of a mistake, said to be a clerical one, in the decree, seeking deletion of the Town Survey No. 462 and substituting the same by the Town Survey No. 463 ---- The village became a part of the municipality, by reason whereof a new Town Survey was assigned to the suit land being Town Survey No. 463 ------ In the plaint and consequently in the preliminary decree as also in the final decree, Town Survey No. 462 was mistakenly mentioned, which was evidently a typographical mistake ----- The facts are not disputed. The identity of the suit land has not been changed ----- It is not a case where, as submitted by Mr. Mahabir Singh, one land is being substituted by another ----- The fact that the town survey No. 463 is a joint family property is not in dispute ----- As indicated hereinbefore, it is the same plot which was the subject matter of sale ----- Order of the High Court confirming the order of the Civil Court allowing the amendment is confirmed.