LAW OFFICE ONLINE

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955; ----- Whether Revenue Officer can decide the title of a property? ------ Held: The Decree passed in the Civil Court is not only binding upon the parties but also the legality of such decree cannot be tested by the Tribunal which is neither an appellate court nor a Court Competent to assess the correctness of the judg ement of the Civil Court ------ Even a void decree cannot be challenged in collateral proceeding and such void decree is binding upon the parties until it declared invalid by the Court of Competent jurisdiction ----- Learned Tribunal not being a Appellate Authority was not only incompetent to consider the correctness of the judgment and decree of the Civil Court but also in fact, exceeded its jurisdiction in making an effort to consider the legality of the judgement and decree of the Civil Court wile dealing with the Tribunal Application ----- The judgement and decree of the Civil Court which attains finality is bind not only upon the Revenue Authority but also upon the Tribunal ----- If tribunal is allowed to test the legality of the Judgement and decree of the Civil Court then there will be no finality in the adjudication by the Civil Court with regard to the disputed question of title between the two parties claiming contradictory claims for title over the property ------ The jurisdiction of the Civil Court in deciding the dispute over the title between two claimants making conflicting claims of title over the suit property cannot be disputed even though while considering the question of title in such the court is incidentally required to consider the correctness of the finally published record of rights.

Evidence Act, 1872; ----- Whether Whatsapp forward can be treated as document as per Evidence Act ----- Held: Annexure - A does not even qualify as a document in terms of the Evidence Act, 1872, in as much as, neither the original nor the copy of the original has been produced. It is an admitted position that the petitioners have not seen original and have had no occasion to even compare Annexure - A with the original.

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.

Civil Law – Practice and Procedure – Held: Cause of action to claim a relief of permanent injunction and the cause of action to claim a relief of specific performance of agreement are independent and one cannot include the other and vice versa -- a plaintiff cannot claim a relief of specific performance of agreement against the defendant on a cause of action on which he has claimed a relief of permanent injunction.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 2 R. 2(2) -- Suit to include the whole claim -- the sine qua non for invoking Order 2 Rule 2(2) against the plaintiff by the defendant is that the relief which the plaintiff has claimed in the second suit was also available to the plaintiff for being claimed in the previous suit on the causes of action pleaded in the previous suit against the defendant and yet not claimed by the plaintiff.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ----- Whether buyer should wait for indefinite period for possession of the property booked ------ Held:

the allottee cannot be expected to wait for possession of the apartment for indefinite period ----- the opposite party is not in a position to offer possession of the apartment, the opposite party company shall refund the amount with
simple interest @ 10% p.a. without any further liability.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; S. 138 ---- Whether the petitioner being victim complainant was entitled to prefer the appeal against judgment and order of acquittal in the Court of the learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta ----- Held: A complainant can file an application for special leave to appeal against an order of acquittal of any kind only to the High Court. He cannot file such appeal in the Sessions Court.

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.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Force Majeure -- Complaint against developer for delayed possession – Developer took the plea of Force Majeure on the ground that Authority failed to supply electricity in time – Documents revealed that the Developer made payment to Authority for electric at a much later date -- The plea of Force Majeure circumstances does not stand – Award for registration in favour of the complainant along the penal interest and compensation.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; S.24A – Limitation to lodge consumer complaint – Delay of more than two years since arising of cause of action – Held: after accepting almost the entire consideration amount it is bounden duty on the part of developer/builder to deliver possession and to execute the sale deed and unless it is done, the cause of action is a continuous one.

Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963 -----
Maharashtra Ownership Flats (Regulations of the Promotion of Construction etc) Rules. 1964 ------
Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 ------
Maharashtra Apartment Ownership Act, 1970 -------
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 -----
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 -----

(i) whether stand alone ‘garage’ or in other words ‘garage’ as an independent unit by itself is a ‘flat’ within the meaning of Section 2(a-1) of MOFA ----- stand alone ‘garage’ or in other words ‘garage’ as an independent unit by itself is not a ‘flat’ within the meaning of Section 2(a-1) and we answer question (i) in the negative.

(ii) whether stilt parking space/open parking space of a building regulated by MOFA is a ‘garage’ ----- A stilt area is a space above the ground and below the first floor having columns that support the first floor and the building ---- It may be usable as a parking space but we do not think that for the purposes of MOFA, such portion could be treated as garage.

(iii) If the answer to aforesaid questions is in the negative, whether stilt parking space/open parking space in such building is part of ‘common areas and facilities’ ------ Stilt parking spaces would not cease to be part of common areas and facilities merely because the promoter has not described the same as such in the advertisement and agreement with the flat purchaser; (iv) what are the rights of the promoter vis-à-vis society (of flat purchasers) in respect of open parking space/s / stilt parking space/s ------ The promoter has no right to sell any portion of such building which is not flat ------ Held: It is thus clear that the promoter has no right to sell “stilt parking spaces” as these are neither “flat” not appurtenant or attachment to a “flat”;

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.