LAW OFFICE ONLINE

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.

Passport Act – Whether father’s is mandatory in Passport --- Being divorced the wife brought up the child as single mother -- Biological father had completely abdicated his responsibilities – Passport authority insisted upon petitioner No. 2 mentioning her father's name in the application -- Name of the biological father in the Passport only if it is a requirement in law, like standing instructions, manuals etc. In the absence of any provision making it mandatory to mention the name of one's biological father in the Passport, the respondents cannot insist upon the same -- Court is of the view that mother's name is sufficient in certain cases like the present one to apply for Passport, Especially as a single woman can be a natural guardian and also a parent -- Directed to modify software and accept the application and issue her a Passport without insisting upon mentioning her father's name.

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

Anti Suit Injunction -- An anti-suit injunction is a judicial order restraining one party from prosecuting a case in another court outside its jurisdiction. The principles governing grant of injunction are common to that of granting anti-suit injunction. The cases of injunction are basically governed by the doctrine of equity. It is a well-settled law that the courts in India have power to issue anti-suit injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction, in an appropriate case.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 -- It is a well-settled law that the courts in India have power to issue anti-suit injunction to a party over whom it has personal jurisdiction, in an appropriate case.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 6 R. 17 ----- Whether a property can be added in the list of properties after a preliminary decree is passed in a partition suit is the question involved herein ----- Held: In certain situations, for the purpose of complete adjudication of the disputes between the parties an appellate Court may also take into consideration subsequent events after passing of the preliminary decree ----- The Trial Court felt that it had committed a mistake. In such a situation, the court, in our opinion, committed no infirmity in directing rectification of its mistake.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; S. 97 ----- Section 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for an appeal against preliminary decree but the said provision, in our opinion, would not be a bar to file an application for amendment of a decree.

Land Encroachment Act, 1905; S. 6, 7 – Evidence Act, 1872; S. 90, 110 – Presumption of title as a result of possession, can arise only where facts disclose that no title vests in any party -
- Possession of the plaintiff is not prima facie wrongful, and title of the plaintiff is not proved -- It certainly does not mean that because a man has title over some land, he is necessarily in possession of it -- if at any time a man with title was in possession of the said property, the law allows the presumption that such possession was in continuation of the title vested in him -- person must establish that he has continued possession of the suit property -- other side claiming title, must make out a case of trespass/ encroachment etc -- mere acceptance of municipal tax or agricultural tax by a person, cannot stop the State from challenging ownership of the land -- Nor can such a presumption arise in case of grant of loan by a bank upon it hypothecating the property -- revenue records confer title, for the reason that they merely show possession of a person -- Held: A revenue record is not a document of title -- It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; S. 138/147 ----- Compounding of offence punishable under section 138 N. I. Act ----- Guidelines given by the Apex Court for settlement of the offence ----

THE GUIDELINES
(i) In the circumstances, it is proposed as follows:
(a) That directions can be given that the Writ of Summons be suitably modified making it clear to the accused that he could make an application for compounding of the offences at the first or second hearing of the case and that if such an application is made, compounding may be allowed by the court without imposing any costs on the accused.
(b) If the accused does not make an application for compounding as aforesaid, then if an application for compounding is made before the Magistrate at a
subsequent stage, compounding can be allowed subject to the condition that the accused will be required to pay 10% of the cheque amount to be deposited as a condition for compounding with the Legal Services Authority, or such authority as the Court deems fit.
(c) Similarly, if the application for compounding is made before the Sessions Court or a High Court in revision or appeal, such compounding may be allowed on the condition that the accused pays 15% of the cheque amount by way of costs.
(d) Finally, if the application for compounding is made before the Supreme Court, the figure would increase to 20% of the cheque amount.
 

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 154 – Registration of F.I.R. – The mandate upon the Police – Held: (i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. (ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. (iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. (iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. (v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. (vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. (vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. (viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 439 ----- Application for Bail to Session Court or High Court without filing application before the Magistrate ---
-- If maintainable ----- Held: that there are no restrictions on the High Court or Sessions Court to entertain an application for bail, provided, accused is in custody.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Mr. Pradeep Narula booked a residential apartment with Granite Gate Properties ------ In furtherance to booking a residential apartment with the Builder, the Builder issued an allotment letter dated June 28, 2010 to the Complainant. Additionally, the parties entered into an Apartment Buyers Agreement on June 29, 2010, according to which, the Builder was to endeavor to complete the construction within 39 months from the date of allotment, i.e. the possession was to be delivered by September 27, 2013 ----- The possession however was not offered to the Complainant by the said date and he was informed that the possession would not be given before July 2014. The aforesaid deadline was later extended till December 31, 2014. Being aggrieved by the said delay, the Complainant approached the Commission against the Builder ------ Held: he Commission held that the Builder was under a contractual obligation to complete the construction and hand over possession of the apartments to the Complainant within 39 months from the date of allotment, and the Builder had failed to do so and none of the reasons given by the Builder were justified ----- The Commission directed the Builder to complete the construction and hand over possession before 31.01.2017, failing which, they were to pay compensation in the form of simple interest @ 10% per annum from the committed date of possession till the date possession is offered to the apartment owner. Accordingly the Commission ordered the Builder to pay to the Complainant, compensation to the same effect as mentioned in the Apartment Buyers Agreement ------ The Builder was also required to pay Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation to the Complainant.