LAW OFFICE ONLINE

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 125 ------ Right to maintenance for a daughter after attaining majority ----- Held: the right of a girl for maintenance from parents after attaining majority till her marriage is recognized under the personal law applicable to the parties, in that case even the major daughter shall be entitled to have maintenance till she gets married ----- it would create inconvenience to the major daughter if she is denied maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C. as she would be forced to file another petition under subsection 3 of Section 20 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act ----- Thus in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and on a combined reading of section 125 Cr.P.C. and section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, the liability of the father of providing maintenance to an unmarried dependent girl extends beyond attainment of majority;

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 165 – Right of Court to put question – Held: Court has a right to ask the party even relevant or irrelevant questions and the parties or their counsel cannot raise any objection to any such question.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 7 R. 11 (d) -- Rejection of Plaint -- the has to be read as a whole -- The defence available to the defendants or the plea taken by them in the written statement or any application filed by them, cannot be the basis to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11(d) -- Only the averments in the plaint are germane -- The issue regarding the suit being barred by limitation in the facts of the present case, is a triable issue and for which reason the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the power under Order VII Rule 11(d).

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; 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.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; S.138 ---- Complaint petition was filed by Shri V. Shankar claimed to be General Power of Attorney holder of the Complainant company ----- Subsequently PW 1 Shri Ravinder Singh gave the evidence on behalf of the Company under the General Power of Attorney given by the Complainant Company ------ The Complaint was not signed either by the Managing Director or Director of the Company ----- It is also not in dispute that PW 1 is only the employee of the Company ----- As per Resolution of the Company Managing Director and Director are authorized to file suits and criminal complaints against the debtors for recovery of money and for prosecution ------ Under third part of the said resolution they were authorized to appoint or nominate any other person to appear on their behalf in the Court and engage lawyer etc ------ But nothing on record suggest that an employee is empowered to file the complaint on behalf of the Company ------ Managing Director and Director are authorized persons of the Company to file the complaint by signing and by giving evidence ----- At best the said persons can nominate any person to represent themselves or the Company before the Court ------ In the present case one Shri Shankar Prasad employee of the Company signed the complaint and the Deputy General Manager of the Company i.e. PW-1 gave evidence as if he knows everything though he does not know anything ------ There is nothing on the record to suggest that he was authorized by the Managing Director or any Director ------ Acquittal of the Accused confirmed.

Information Technology Act, 2000; S. 72 -- Whether recording of telephone conversation of wife without her knowledge is admissible in evidence
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 – Whether recording of telephone conversation of wife without her knowledge is admissible in evidence – Held: Recording of conversation without her knowledge is an infringement of her right to privacy – Bar in Section 72 of the Information Technology Act -- The tapes cannot be admitted in evidence but it may be kept on record.

Evidence Act, 1872; S. 65 (C) and (f) – Admissibility of public document – Secondary evidence of content of document when the original public document is lost or destroyed – Held: Under S. 65 clauses (a) and (c) secondary evidence was admissible -- It is held that a case may fall both under clauses (a) or (c) and (f) in which case secondary evidence would be admis-sible. It was held that clauses (a) and (c) were independent of clause (f) and even an ordinary copy would, therefore, be admissible -- As stated above the case that the original was no longer available in Court records and the certified copy was lost has not been disbelieved -- Thus the ordinary copy of the earlier judgment was admissible in evidence and had been correctly marked as an exhibit by the trial court.

West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953; S. 5A ---
West Bengal Land Reforms and Tenancy Tribunal Act, 1997 –
West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1956 – Revenue Officer hold that the transfer made by Sarat Chandra Ghosh, by way of family settlement to his sons, was not bona fide -- The petitioners approached the tribunal by filing a Miscellaneous Application for securing the compliance of the direction of the Civil Court -- The tribunal, dictated the petitioners to prefer appeal before the appellate authority holding that the order under Section 5A of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 has been appealable -- in a suit, in which State of West Bengal was a party, the title of these petitioners was declared and their possession was confirmed -- The State of West Bengal and, naturally, its men, agents and employees were restrained from giving effect to the order dated January 14, 1969 disposing of the proceeding under Section 5A of the West Bengal Estate Acquisition Act, 1953 -- Held: there was no escape from not complying with the directions passed by the competent civil court -- The settlement records of right are not the documents of title -- Therefore, it must yield to the decree of the civil court.

Banking Regulation Act, 1949; S. 45ZA –
Banking Companies (Nomination) Rules, 1985; R. 2(1) -- Whether bank can refuse to make payment to nominee -- Nomination made by a depositor/account holder is the eflection of his wish upon identification by him of the recipient of the deposit lying in an account in the event of death of such depositor/account holder and to hold the same in his (recipient’s) custody for being distributed according to the law of succession. Nomination, which is made without any coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation and is accepted by a banking company upon a satisfaction that the nomination does not suffer from any of the vitiating factors and clothes the nominee to receive the amount, ought to be acted upon after the death of the depositor/account holder, for, that would result in honouring his wish -- If at all the nomination is, at a subsequent stage, found to suffer from any technical defect precluding the banking company to act on such nomination, it ought to be the bounden duty of the officials of the bank to get the nomination rectified/altered so as to bring it in conformity with the statutory requirements provided the depositor/account holder is alive. Once the opportunity to get the nomination rectified/altered is lost by the tardy and indolent acts of the officials of the bank, it would not be in the interest of justice to allow the banking officials to refuse to honour the wish expressed by the depositor/account holder.