LAW OFFICE ONLINE

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 ---- 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.

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.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 ----- whether a false allegation of impotency is an act of cruelty to create a ground for divorce ----- Held: the unproved allegations of the wife that the husband was impotent for about six to seven months from the marriage was rightly weighed by the Family Court to hold that the wife had treated the husband with cruelty by making false and baseless allegations against him ----- no husband would like to hear that he was impotent for about 6 to 7 months after the marriage, if that was not true ----- Divorce granted in favour of the husband.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Delay in delivery of possession – Direction to refund the entire amount along with 10% simple interest per annum and compensation.

Code of Criminal Procedure, S. 125, 126; ------- Territorial Jurisdiction to file case for maintenance ------- Regarding the place of institution and adjudication of the maintenance proceeding, it is indicated therein that such proceeding can be taken against any person in any district, inter alia, where the wife resides ---
-- The word ‘reside’ means to live or to have a dwelling place or an abode and is not equivalent to something in the nature of having a domicile in a particular
place or having a place as the place of origin or the place where the family used to live ----- The words ‘where he or his wife resides’ in section 126(1)(b) of the
Code has been interpreted to mean not only domicile in the technical sense of that word but also something more than a flying visit to or a casual stay in a particular place contemplating animus manendi or an intention to stay for a period. The length of the period is dependent upon the circumstances of each case ------ Thus a person ‘resides’ in a place if he/she through choice makes it his/her abode permanently or temporarily and whether he/she has chosen to make a particular place his/her abode or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case ----- The territorial jurisdiction is to be determined on the date of filing the application. Even if the wife resides at a place temporarily on the date of filing of the application under section 125 Cr.P.C., the concerned Court within whose territorial jurisdiction she is residing, can entertain such application. (Para 7);

Consumer Protection Act, 1986; Buyer’s Agreement dated 16.04.2010 was executed between them ------ The Builder was required to deliver possession of the flat to the Complainants within 36 months from the date of the Buyer’s Agreement ----- The grievance of the Complainants was that the Builder had failed to offer possession to them within the time period stipulated in the Buyer’s Agreement ------ Commission found that none of the reasons given by the Builder for the delay, such as non-availability of construction material or labour, were tenable ----- The Commission also rejected the argument of the Builder regarding government regulations and economic recession being a justification of the delay ----- The Buyer’s Agreement was entered into by Complainants with almost no bargaining power and under the threat of losing the earnest money ------ Further, under the Buyer’s Agreement, in case of delay in payment by the Complainant, an interest at a rate ranging from 18% to 24% per annum compounded annually was charged.

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.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 256 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882; S. 138—Whether dismissal of complaint due to non-appearance of the complainant amounts to acquittal of the accused under section 256 Cr.P.C. – Held: In the facts of the case, that dismissal of the complaint for non-appearance of the complainant amounts to acquittal as contemplated in Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

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.