LAW OFFICE ONLINE

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.
 

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.

Special Marriage Act, 1954; S. 27 and 28 – Conversion of the contested Divorce suit to Mutual Divorce – Held: the learned Judge ought to have allowed the petitioner’s application for conversion. He did not do so on wrong notion that he did not have the power to do so. In other words he declined to exercise his jurisdiction thinking that he had no such jurisdiction when in fact, he had the jurisdiction to allow the application for conversion.

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.

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.

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 ----- Recording of Barga ---- Held that in order to establish bargadar in the land of another person, the Bargadar must prove the following : -
1. that he himself is cultivating land from his own sources;
2. that he shares crops with the land owner, in the proportion provided in the Act and such factum of sharing of crops must be established by documentary evidence, namely receipt;
3. that in case of refusal to accept the share crops by the land owner, he must deposit the same to the credit of the land owner with the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer and obtain a receipt;
4. that in case of refusal to grant receipt against tendering of share crops, the bargadar has to lodge a complaint before the Magistrate under Section 19A (2A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. S. 19A (2A) ----- Lodging of complaint ----- Held: therein that lodging of such complaint, prima facie establishes the fact of refusal to grant receipt as Section 19A (2A) of the West Bengal land Reforms Act provides that refusal to grant receipt is a punishable offence and the same is cognizable also. Therefore, the importance of issuance of receipt is well‐understood.

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955; S. 18 ----- Recording of Barga ---- Standard of proof ----- Held: though laws of evidence is not strictly applied in such proceeding but the basic facts regarding cultivation of the petitioners’ land by the respondent No.7 and sharing of produce between them in the same proportion as mentioned in the said Act arerequired to be proved by substantive evidence.

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955; S. 18 ------ Refusal by landowner to accept the share of produce ---- Duty cast upon claimed Barga ----- He should intimate the B.L. & L.R.O. and must deposit the share of crop with the Revenue Officer against receipt ----- Issuance of notice to the Land owners regarding deposit of such share of crops ----- Intimation given to the Pradhan about the refusal to accept the share of the produce by the petitioner, cannot be regarded as due compliance of the provision contained in Section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 7 R. 11 – What to consider while Rejection of plaint – Held: Court is required to consider the pleadings made out in the plaint itself and the annexures thereto for ascertaining as to whether the plaint is liable to be rejected on any of the grounds as mentioned therein -- Court cannot consider any other document and/or material beyond the pleadings made out in the plaint and/or annexures thereto.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 7 R. 11 – Whether the plaint as a whole can be rejected when part of the plaintiff’s claim can be adjudicated upon by the Civil Court -- Absence of independent cause of made the plaint liable to be rejected in whole.

West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006; S. 102 -- Suit challenging wrongful termination of the building contract -- Whether the plaint is liable to be rejected as it is barred under the provision contained in Section 102 of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 – In absence of any contradiction it can be assumed that the business of housing co-operative society is of constructing dwelling units for its members -- the dispute between the plaintiff and the Cooperative Society concerns the business of the said Cooperative Society and it relates to the affairs of the said Cooperative Society and such dispute is a dispute within the meaning of the dispute under Section 4(25) of the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 2006 which is capable of resolution by the Registrar as per the provision of Section 102 of the said Act -- the Civil Court as per the provision of Section 102 (4) of the said Act.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 ----- Whether during pendency of Divorce Suit the wife has right to reside at her husband’s residence ----- Wife has been residing at a rental accommodation ----- She is employed ----- Held: once a matrimonial suit has been filed, the wife has no right to have a force entry in the house of her husband against his will if she is provided with maintenance by the husband ----- Allegation that the wife tried to enter the house of the husband forcibly with the help of the local people -----Held: The sole object of the respondent was to frustrate the suit by contending that she had been staying in the same room as husband and wife and she has actually taken such plea in this proceeding ----- We, however, do not believe such assertion of the wife after taking into consideration the fact that the she has initiated proceedings under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code during the pendency of the suit and all the members of the family were arrested ----- No reasonable person will believe the statement of the wife that the husband is staying with her notwithstanding the pendency of the criminal case where charge has been framed and he is an accused person along with other members of the family.