LAW OFFICE ONLINE

Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) -- Claim for reimbursement – Whether claim can be rejected as the Superspeciality hospital is not included in the Government Order – Held: The right to medical claim cannot be denied merely because the name of the hospital is not included in the Government Order.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1882; S. 138; Security Cheque –The word Security Cheque has been used in the agreement -- The said expression refers to the cheques being towards repayment of installments -- The repayment becomes due under the agreement, the moment the loan is advanced and the installment falls due -- Once the loan was disbursed and installments have fallen due on the date of the cheque as per the agreement, dishonour of such cheques would fall under Section 138 of the Act -- The cheques undoubtedly represent the outstanding liability.

Constitution of India; Art. 14 and 21 -- Recognition of third gender –

Held: the Court upheld transgender persons’ right to self-identify their gender. The Constitution requires equal treatment of all people regardless of their gender identity or expression. The Court declared that the Centre and State governments must grant legal recognition of gender identity as male, female or third gender. A full recognition is to be given even in the absence of any existing statutory regime. Additionally, the Court declared that educational, social and health care issues faced by transgender people must be addressed both at the centre and state government levels.

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; O. 6 R. 17 ----- Amendment of plaint after a final decree is passed in a suit for partition ----- application for amendment of a mistake, said to be a clerical one, in the decree, seeking deletion of the Town Survey No. 462 and substituting the same by the Town Survey No. 463 ---- The village became a part of the municipality, by reason whereof a new Town Survey was assigned to the suit land being Town Survey No. 463 ------ In the plaint and consequently in the preliminary decree as also in the final decree, Town Survey No. 462 was mistakenly mentioned, which was evidently a typographical mistake ----- The facts are not disputed. The identity of the suit land has not been changed ----- It is not a case where, as submitted by Mr. Mahabir Singh, one land is being substituted by another ----- The fact that the town survey No. 463 is a joint family property is not in dispute ----- As indicated hereinbefore, it is the same plot which was the subject matter of sale ----- Order of the High Court confirming the order of the Civil Court allowing the amendment is confirmed.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13  -  Whether the award of permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- by the Family Court to the respondent(wife) was legally and factually sustainable -- Held: It is really unfortunate that neither the Family Court nor the High Court kept in mind these legal principles and passed cryptic and unreasoned orders -- Such orders undoubtedly cause prejudice to the parties and in this case, it caused prejudice to the appellant(husband) because the orders of the High Court and Family Court deprived him to know the reasons for fixing the permanent alimony amount of Rs.15,00,000/- payable to his wife – Impugned order of the High Court and the order of the Family Court insofar as it relates to fixation of permanent alimony of Rs.15,00,000/- are set aside.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 439 ----- Grant of Bail ----- The court granting bail should exercise its discretion in a judicious manner and not as a matter of course ---- Though at the stage of granting bail a detailed examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of the merit of the case need not be undertaken, there is a need to indicate in such orders reasons for prima facie concluding why bail was being granted particularly where the accused is charged of having committed a serious offence ----- Any order devoid of such reasons would suffer from non-application of mind ----- It is also necessary for the court granting bail to consider, among other circumstances, the following factors also before granting bail; they are: (a) The nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence. (b) Reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant. (c) Prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charge.

Power of Attorney Act, 1882; S. 1A , 2 ------ Transfer of Property Act, 1882 : Validity and legality of SA/GPA/WILL transaction ----- A power of attorney is not an instrument of transfer in regard to any right, title or interest in an immovable property ----- The power of attorney is creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him ----- An attorney holder may however execute a deed of conveyance in exercise of the power granted under the power of attorney and convey title on behalf of the grantor ----- SA/GPA/WILL transaction does not convey any title nor create any interest in an immovable property ----- the “concept of power of attorney sales have been recognized as a mode of transaction” when dealing with transactions by way of SA/GPA/WILL are unwarranted and not justified, unintendedly misleading the general public into thinking that SA/GPA/WILL transactions are some kind of a recognized or accepted mode of transfer and that it can be a valid substitute for a sale deed.
Such decisions to the extent they recognize or accept SA/GPA/WILL transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted from an agreement to transfer, are not good law ----- Transactions of the nature of ‘GPA sales’ or ‘SA/GPA/WILL transfers’ do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immoveable property ----- Held: We make it clear that our observations are not intended to in any way affect the validity of sale agreements and powers of attorney executed in genuine transactions. For example, a person may give a power of attorney to his spouse, son, daughter, brother, sister or a relative to manage his affairs or to execute a deed of conveyance. A person may enter into a development agreement with a land developer or builder for developing the land either by forming plots or by constructing apartment buildings and in that behalf execute an agreement of sale and grant a Power of Attorney empowering the
developer to execute agreements of sale or conveyances in regard to individual plots of land or undivided shares in the land relating to apartments in favour of prospective purchasers. In several States, the execution of such development agreements and powers of attorney are already regulated by law and subjected to specific stamp duty. Our observations regarding ‘SA/GPA/WILL transactions’ are not intended to apply to such bonafide/genuine transactions.

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.

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.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 – Validity of Divorce Decree passed by Foreign Court – Held: The present decree dissolving the marriage passed by the foreign court is without jurisdiction according to the Act as neither the marriage was celebrated nor the parties last resided together nor the respondent resided within the jurisdiction of that Court -- The decree is also passed on a ground which is not available under the Act which is applicable to the marriage -- the decree has been obtained by the 1st appellant by stating that he was the resident of the Missouri State when the record shows that he was only a bird of passage there and was ordinarily a resident of the State of Louisiana – Such divorce decree cannot be taken into consideration.

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; S. 13 – Validity of Divorce Decree passed by Foreign Court – Rules framed are The jurisdiction assumed by the foreign court as well as the grounds on which the relief is granted must be in accordance with the matrimonial law under which the parties are married. The exceptions to this rule may be as follows: (i) where the matrimonial action is filed in the forum where the respondent is domiciled or habitually and permanently resides and the relief is granted on a ground available in the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (ii) where the respondent voluntarily and effectively submits to the jurisdiction of the forum as discussed above and contests the claim which is based on a ground available under the matrimonial law under which the parties are married; (iii) where the respondent consents to the grant of the relief although the jurisdiction of the forum is not in accordance with the provisions of the matrimonial law of the parties.