MSK Publications -MSK Law Reports 2015 – Ready Reckoner

Sections 406, 409 read with Section 120(B) of IPC- for quashing of FIR on the ground that it is purely civil in nature - entered  into  a conspiracy, pursuant to which fabricated documents  were  created  and  in  land acquisition proceedings concerning land bearing City Survey No.  20722,  situated within the limits of Aurangabad Corporation,  compensation  to  the  tune of Rs.23.48 lacs was received by the appellant without there being  any  entitlement.  - HELD THAT -  We have gone through the record and considered rival submissions.  The  High  Court found three infirmities namely  that  Onkargiri,  predecessor  of the  plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.81 of 1993 did not have any title;  that  no sale deed was  executed  by  the  plaintiffs  in  favour  of  said  three  persons; and that the document of lease  stated  to  be  in  favour  of  the  appellant  did  not  mention  any  rent  at  all.  In  the  face  of   these  observations it cannot be said that the dispute in ques

Sections 148, 302 read with  Section  149  and 201 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’).-  where  the  Trial  Court  and  the  High  Court,  on  appreciating the  entire  oral  evidence,  recorded  categorical  concurrent findings of fact against the appellants (accused) about their complicity  in commission of crime in question which resulted in killing of mother and  her unmarried daughter.-  HELD THAT - This Court, being the last  Court  of  appeal,  does not re-visit and re-appreciate the entire  oral  evidence  de  novo  in  its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution unless there  are  strong and prima facie reasons to do so pointing out  therein  any  apparent  legal and jurisdictional error prejudicing any rights of the accused.; Sections 148, 302 read with  Section  149  and  201 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (for short ‘IPC’).-  whether  bones  recovered were human or animal bones, -   In our considered opinion,  the  disclosure  statements  m

Motor Accidents Claim - Tribunal conducted trial but return the claim petition to present in proper Tribunal feeling that it has no jurisdiction -  The appellants filed review  petition  against  that order which was also dismissed vide orders dated 10.04.2013.-  Challenging this order,  the  appellants  filed  petition  under Article 227 of the Constitution in the High  Court  of  Calcutta  which  has been dismissed by the High Court on the ground of delays and laches  stating that though MACT had dismissed the review petition of  the  appellants  vide orders dated 10.04.2013, revisional application challenging that  order  was filed only on 03.03.2015 after a delay of almost 2 years. - Apex court held that    It is  an  admitted  position  in  law  that  no  limitation  is  prescribed for filing application under Article  227  of  the  Constitution - but   supposed to file  the  same without unreasonable delay and if there is a delay that should be  duly  and satisfactorily explaine

Delhi Rent control Act sec.14 - Rent Control Case - Eviction Petition - The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant  on  the  ground  that  the tenant had sub-let the premises to his son-in-law  in  contravention  of Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred  to  as ‘the Act’).  -  whether  he  was doing business along with his father-in-law or independent of him,  i.e. whether  he  was  doing  business  exclusively  behind  the  façade   of   a  partnership or as a genuine partner.  It is an  uncontroverted  fact  before  us that the landlord’s permission in writing was  not  obtained  before  the  tenant had allowed the alleged sub-tenant to occupy the shop -  the Rent Controller clearly found that the son-in-law had been put  in  possession of the shop in pursuance of a sham partnership deed and  was  not  merely assisting in the shop as a son-in-law.-  The High  Court held that the respondent-tenant, Hakim Rai had not sub-let the  premises  to his  so

Election petition -  The  appellant  lost  election  from  Bhattiyat  Assembly  Constituency   of  Himachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly held  in  2012  by  a  margin  of  111 votes. He filed an election petition mainly on  the  grounds  under  Section  100(1)(d)(iii) of the Act -  Exercise of dual right of franchise by a voter and discrepancy between  the EVM record and the record maintained in Form 17-A at polling station  No.92- Kamla; - Improper reception of 30 postal ballot papers; and Discrepancy regarding 100 postal ballot papers-whether 597 or 697?” - issues framed -  “2)   Whether the election petition is liable to be dismissed in limine  for lack of material facts and particulars, as alleged? 3)    Whether the election petition is not  maintainable  for  want  of  any cause of action, as alleged?” - High Court dismissed election petition on  preliminary issues under Or.14, rule 2 of C.P.C. - Apex court held that  High court  committed a  grave  error by considering the expla

Or.39, rule 1 and 2 C.P.C. - suit for injunction - interim application for interim injunction - Trial court rejected - High court granted - Apex court set aside the High court and restore the trial court order-  The Plaintiff along with his Maternal grand-mother  are in use, occupation and possession of the  premises-The Defendant Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 are the Paternal uncles  of  the Plaintiff’s mother -Defendant No.6,  is a son of the Defendant No.5 and Defendant No.4 is the sister  of  Defendants1,2,3 and 5 -Mohammed Ali H. Tejani (called the said Deceased)  was  a  Co-owner along with Defendant Nos.1 to 5 in respect of a Plot of  Land  bearing Plot No.202-D, along with the building comprising of ground with  one  upper floor-The said deceased  executed a Will dated 28th September 1991 under which  the  deceased  bequeathed  his  1/7th share in the plot of land in favour of the Defendant Nos.1 to  5.  The  said Will is probated in the High Court  -  the maternal grand-mother of the res

the  Award passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by  the  High  Court,  wherein  the workman was directed to be reinstated with 50% backwages. conferring  benefit  of doubt, he has been acquitted in  the  case  and,  thereafter,  he  has  been reinstated.  The appellants, therefore,  contend  that  the  respondent  was kept out of service only on account  of  his  involvement  in  the  criminal case, as warranted by the Service Regulations concerned and hence, there  is no justification in granting him backwages. Apex court Held that  we had  made  it  clear  that  the scope is limited only to the question of backwages. In the above circumstances, the appeal is allowed to the  extent  that the  respondent  will  be  entitled  to  all  service   benefits   including continuity of service, except any backwages.

interpretation  of  Section 123(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to a  Bench  of seven judges has its origins in three decisions of this Court .=  scope and  what  constitutes  a  corrupt  practice  under  sub- sections (3) or (3A) of Section 123 of  the  Representation  of  the  People  Act, 1951 (for short, ‘the Act’) needs to  be  clearly  and authoritatively  laid down to  avoid  a  miscarriage  of  justice  in  interpreting   ‘corrupt  practice’= The provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 123 of  the  Representation  of the People Act, 1951 are required to be read and appreciated in the  context of simultaneous and contemporaneous amendments  inserting  sub-section  (3A) in Section 123 of the Act and inserting Section 153A  in  the  Indian  Penal Code. So read together, and for maintaining the purity of  the  electoral  process and not vitiating it, sub-section (3) of Section 123 of  the  Representation of the People Act, 1951 must be given a broad an

suit for declaration and recovery of possession by Plaintiff  -  declaration that the  agreement  for  sale  dated  16th  October,  1988  was  without any authority given to Jinendra Jain.  She also made  a  prayer  for  recovery of possession and grant of mesne profits since  possession  of  the plot had been given by Jinendra Jain to Makhija. ;  - as counter blast -  Suit for specific performance by defendant -   for  specific  performance  of  the  agreement  dated  16th  October, 1988 entered into by  him  with  Pushparani  through  her  attorney Jinendra Jain.-  The  original  of  this  document [power of attorney]  has  not  been  produced by anybody. - trial court decreed the suit of plaintiff and dismissed the suit of the defendant;  Pending appeal the defendant field filed  an application before the High Court under Order XLI Rule 27  of  the  Code  of Civil Procedure[1] (for short the CPC) for adducing additional evidence. -  sought  to  bring  on   record   an  applica