Posts

Showing posts from 2017

when the sale agreement was not proved - he has no locus standi to file this case - the appellant had no title to the suit land. All that he had claimed to possess in relation to the suit land was an agreement dated 24.04.1980 to purchase the suit land from its owner (Shri Ved Prakash Kakaria). The appellant, as mentioned above, failed to prove the agreement. In this view of the matter, the appellant had no prima facie case in his favour to file a suit nor he had even any locus to file the suit in relation to the suit land once the agreement was held not proved. The suit was, however, filed by the appellant almost after 12 years from the date of agreement and that too it was for declaration and mandatory injunction but not for specific performance of agreement. It was, in our opinion, a misconceived suit and was, therefore, rightly dismissed. Third, the suit was otherwise hopelessly barred by limitation because, as mentioned above, the date of agreement is 24.04.1980 whereas the suit was filed on 10.10.1992. ; Even the Will was rightly held not proved by the Courts below and we are inclined to uphold the finding on this issue too. Indeed when the deceased has two sons and one daughter (respondent Nos.1-3), why should he execute a Will in appellant’s favour, who was not related to him.

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.4383 OF 2009
Suresh Kumar through GPA ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Anil Kakaria & Ors. .…Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the
judgment and order dated 02.05.2006 passed by the
High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in
R.S.A. No. 1522 of 2006 whereby the High Court
dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant herein
and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2005
passed by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula in
C.A. No.20 of 2005.
2) The appellant is the plaintiff whereas the
respondents are the defendants in the civil suit out of
1
2
which this appeal arises.
3) The dispute in this appeal relates to plot No.28,
measuring 1/4th acre in Industrial Area Phase-I Urban
Estate, Panchkula(hereinafter referred to as “the suit
land”).
4) Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter
referred to as “HUDA”) had allotted the suit land to one
Sh…

under Section 325 IPC. jail sentence can not be substituted by fine= The High Court, in our view, ought to have either upheld the award of jail sentence of four years awarded by the Sessions Court or reduce the jail sentence to any reasonable term but it had no jurisdiction to fully set aside the jail sentence and substitute it by imposing only fine of Rs.10,000/-.

1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.2437 OF 2010
The State of Uttar Pradesh Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Tribhuwan & Ors. Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is filed by the State against the
judgment and order dated 10.02.2006 of the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Criminal Appeal
No.211 of 1982 whereby the High Court partly allowed
the appeal filed by the accused persons and while
upholding the conviction of the five accused interfered
in the sentence and its quantum awarded to the
accused persons by order dated 22.01.1982 passed by
1
2
the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Azamgarh in
Sessions Trial No.132 of 1981.
2. Having regard to the short controversy, which
now remains for decision in this appeal as a result of
subsequent events occurring in the case after the
incident in question which took place way back in the
year 1980, it is not necessary to set out the facts in
detail except those which are relevant for …

. Pecuniary damages (Special Damages): (i) Expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines, transportation, nourishing food, and miscellaneous expenditure; (ii) Loss of earnings (and other gains) which the injured would have made had he not been injured, comprising: (a) Loss of earning during the period of treatment; (b) Loss of future earnings on account of permanent disability. (iii) Future medical expenses. B. Non-pecuniary damages (General Damages) (iv) Damages for pain, suffering and trauma as a consequence of the injuries; 5 (v) Loss of amenities (and/or loss of prospects of marriage); (vi) Loss of expectation of life (shortening of normal longevity)=After completion of his 10+2, the appellant had passed Diploma in Applied Research International, New Delhi which is a condition precedent for joining Merchant Navy. - aged 22 years, un married, 50% disablity to the right arm- he cannot join Merchant Navy. Even, it would be very difficult for him to get an alternate job easily, particularly in view of 50% permanent disability to his right arm. Thus, the appellant is awarded Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lacs only) on account of the expenses relating to treatment, hospitalization, medicines etc, loss of earnings during the course of treatment and loss of future earnings on 8 account of permanent disability. The appellant is awarded Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs only) for future medical expenses. The appellant must have suffered pain, agony and trauma as a consequence of injuries. The Court can take judicial notice of the fact that he may not have bright future as before. He was just 22 years of age at the time of accident and was unmarried. It is unfortunate that he had to suffer at this young age when he was thinking of his bright future life. Having regard to the material on record, we award Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lacs only) towards pain, agony and trauma as a consequence of injuries, and Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lacs only) towards loss of amenities(including loss of prospects of marriage) and Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three Lacs only) towards loss of expectation of life. Thus, on all counts, the appellant is awarded, in total, a compensation of Rs.22,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Two Lacs only), instead of Rs.8,80,000/-(Rupees Eight Lacs Eighty Thousand only) awarded by the High Court, along with uniform rate of interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal till 9 its realization. It is also directed that the payment of compensation with interest shall be made to the appellant within three months from today

1
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.__17998_____OF 2017
(Arising from SLP (C) No.4841/2016)
Ankur Kapoor ..Appellant
Versus
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. ..Respondent
J U D G M E N T
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant has sought enhancement of
compensation by filing this appeal, questioning the judgment
dated 31.10.2015 passed by the High Court of Punjab and
Haryana at Chandigarh in FAO No. 3218 of 2003 (O&M).
2
3. Facts leading to this appeal are as under:
In the accident that occurred at about 10.30 p.m. on
21.3.2000 at Jamnagar, the appellant sustained grievous injury
to his right arm which resulted in permanent disability to the
extent of 50% to his right arm. Since the appellant was
immediately admitted to the hospital at Jamnagar his life was
saved; the appellant remained as in-patient in the hospital
from 21.03.2000 to 31.05.2000 and had undergone several
surgeries. It is the case of the appellant that even after
discha…

In ASHWIN S. MEHTA AND ANOTHER v. CUSTODIAN AND OTHERS the Honourable Apex Court at paragraph No.70, held as under: Even if such a decree is set aside, the interest of the bona fide purchaser in an auction-sale is saved. In JANATHA TEXTILES AND OTHERS the Honourable Apex Court ruled at paragraph No.18 as follows: It is an established principle of law that in a third party auction-purchasers interest in the auctioned property continues to be protected notwithstanding that the underlying decree is subsequently set aside or otherwise. This principle has been stated and reaffirmed in a number of judicial pronouncements by the Privy Council and this Court. Reliance has been placed on the following decisions In SADASHIV PRASAD SINGH v. HARENDAR SINGH AND OTHERS the Honourable Apex Court held that the rights of the auction purchaser in the property purchased cannot be extinguished except in cases where the said purchase can be assailed on the grounds of fraud or collusion. Therefore, in view of the law laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in the above referred judgments, this Court finds sufficient force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that, despite the factum of the ex parte decree being set aside, the petitioner herein is entitled to protect his rights in respect of the subject property which he purchased in the Court auction. But in view of the earlier orders of this Court, confirming the orders passed by the Court below in the Revision filed by the decree-holder, this Civil Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI      

CIVIL REVISION PETITIION No.2623 of 2012  

05-10-2017

Alapati Harichandrarao S/o Seshanna, Hindu, 76 years, R/o Satyanarayanapuram, Eluru, West Godavari District.PETITIONER/3RD    

Nalluri Somasekhar,  S/o Koteswara Rao, Hindu, 54 years, Cultivation, R/o Satyanarayanapuram, Eluru, West Godavari District

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER: SRI VENKATESWARLU CHAKKILAM                        

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS: NONE APPEARED              

<Gist:

>Head Note


? Cases referred
1.AIR 1967 SC 608
2 (2006) 2 SCC 385
3 (2008) 12 SCC 582
4 (2015) 5 SCC 574

THE HONBLE JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI      

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2623 OF 2012    
ORDER:
      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. Despite service of
notice, none appears for the respondents.
      The auction purchaser in E.P.No.183 of 2006 in O.S.No.44 of
2005 on the file of the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Eluru is
the petitioner in the present revision filed under S…

By a Notification bearing No.102/2007-Customs issued on 14-09-2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 25 (1) of the Customs Act, 1962, the Government of India exempted the goods falling within the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, from the whole of the additional duty of the customs leviable under Section 3 (5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, when imported into India for subsequent sale. Paragraph 2 of the said notification gave a list of conditions to be fulfilled by the importer, for availing the benefit of exemption. 5. The respondent-assessee filed claims for refund with the jurisdictional Customs Officer. All the claims made by the respondent- assessee were partially allowed by the jurisdictional Customs Officer.The disallowance of a part of the refund claim was on two grounds viz., (1) that the timber logs imported by the respondent- assessee were not sold as such by them, but were sold locally after sawning them and cutting them into smaller sizes; and (2) that the logs cut into smaller sizes could not correlate to the items described in the import packing list.

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI                      

C.E.A.Nos.57 of 2017

12-10-2017

The Commissioner of Customs, Custom House, Port Area, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh  Appellant      

Gayatri Timbers Private Limited, Opp: Steel Plant Main Road, Kurmannapalem, Visakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh .. Respondent  

Counsel for Appellant:  Mrs. Sundari R. Pisupati, Senior Standing counsel for the appellant

Counsel for respondent:Mr. K. Vijay Kumar

<Gist:

>Head Note:

?Cases referred:

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND          
HONBLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI        

C.E.A.Nos.57, 60, 61, 62, 66, 69, 71, 72, 74 and 75 of 2017

COMMON ORDER: (V. Ramasubramanian, J)      

        The Revenue has come up with the above appeals under
Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962, challenging the orders of the
Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT)
allowing the claims for refund made by the Assessee.

in VINODAN T. V/s. UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT . It is manifest from the aforestated observation of the Supreme Court that where the facts in a summary suit are of such a nature as to entitle the defendant to interrogate the plaintiff or to cross-examine his witnesses, leave should not be denied. In effect, the right of the defendant to interrogate/cross-examine the plaintiff or his witnesses flows from the leave to defend granted to him under Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC and not independently. In consequence, it is not open to the defendant to now claim that his right to cross-examine the plaintiff would not be part and parcel of his leave to defend the suit. As such a right cannot be claimed automatically by the defendant and leave to defend was, in fact, granted to him subject to the condition of a pre-deposit, it is not open to the defendant to get over the same and indirectly try to defend the suit by asking for permission to cross-examine the plaintiff. = Order 37 Rule 3(5) CPC and not independently. In consequence, it is not open to the defendant to now claim that his right to cross-examine the plaintiff would not be part and parcel of his leave to defend the suit. As such a right cannot be claimed automatically by the defendant and leave to defend was, in fact, granted to him subject to the condition of a pre-deposit, it is not open to the defendant to get over the same and indirectly try to defend the suit by asking for permission to cross-examine the plaintiff. =The trial Court therefore erred in drawing a parallel from a principle that would apply in an ordinary suit and deciding the I.A. in favour of the defendant. Unless and until the petitioner/ defendant complies with the conditional order, whereby he was granted leave to defend the suit in O.S.No.954 of 2015, it is not open to him to seek to cross-examine either the plaintiff or any witness examined on his behalf or advance arguments. The order under revision is accordingly set aside and the civil revision petition is allowed

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.3465 OF 2017    

13-10-2017

Sarikonda Srinivasa Raju .. Petitioner

K.Ravi Prasad .. Respondent

Counsel for petitioner  :Sri P.Surya Narayana Murthy

Counsel for respondent:Smt. G.Jyothi Kiran

<Gist:

>Head Note:    


? CASES REFERRED:    

1. AIR 1955 SC 425
2. AIR 1963 SC 1526
3. (1988) 4 SCC 619
4. (2011) 6 SCC 321
5. (1991) Suppl. 1 SCC 191
6. (2002) 4 SCC 736

THE HONBLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR        

CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3465 of 2017  
O R D E R

      By order dated 04.07.2017, the learned XIII Additional
District and Sessions Judge at L.B.Nagar, Ranga Reddy District,
allowed I.A.No.393 of 2017 in O.S.No.954 of 2015 holding that the
defendant in the suit, the petitioner in the said I.A., was entitled to
cross-examine the plaintiff on the affidavit filed by him for passing
judgment and to argue the matter. Aggrieved thereby, the plaintiff
is before this Court by way of this revision under Article 22…

whether a prima facie case is made out to proceed against the accused. Under Section 319 CrPC, though the test of prima facie case is the same, the degree of satisfaction that is required is much stricter. = Power under Section 319 CrPC is a discretionary and an extraordinary power. It is to be exercised sparingly and only in those cases where the circumstances of the case so warrant. It is not to be exercised because the Magistrate or the Sessions Judge is of the opinion that some other person may also be guilty of committing that offence. Only where strong and cogent evidence occurs against a person from the evidence led before the court that such power should be exercised and not in a casual and cavalier manner.=we hold that though only a prima facie case is to be established from the evidence led before the court, not necessarily tested on the anvil of cross-examination, it requires much stronger evidence than mere probability of his complicity. The test that has to be applied is one which is more than prima facie case at the time of framing of charge, but short of satisfaction to an extent that the evidence, if goes unrebutted, would lead to conviction. In the absence of such satisfaction, the court should refrain from exercising power under Section 319 CrPC. In Section 319 CrPC the purpose of providing if it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence is clear from the words for which such person could be tried together with the accused. The words used are not for which such person could be convicted. There is, therefore, no scope for the court acting under Section 319 CrPC to form any opinion as to the guilt of the accused. (emphasis supplied). Having regard to the above, the Criminal Petition is allowed by setting aside the impugned order and the matter is remitted back to the trial Court if at all from any further evidence to take cognizance if any offence made out so to take by left open all available defences in such event of taking cognizance to the petitioner among others.

HONBLE SRI JUSTICE Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO      

CRIMINAL PETITION No.12242 of 2010  

12-10-2017

Vemuri Radhakrishna Petitioner  

Pathuri Prasad and another.Respondents  


Counsel for the petitioner:Sri D. Srinivas

Counsel for the respondents :Sri G.L. Narasimha Rao Learned Public Prosecutor

<GIST:

>HEAD NOTE:  


? Cases referred
1.(2014) 3 SCC 92
2.(2017) 7 SCC 706


HONBLE SRI JUSTICE Dr. B. SIVA SANKARA RAO      
CRIMINAL PETITION No.12242 of 2010  
ORDER:
      The petitioner V. Radhakrishna is the Managing Director of
Andhra Jyothi is the A.9 among other accused of C.C.No.126 of
2008 pending on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First
Class, Chilakaluripet, for the defamatory imputation published in
the daily newspaper, Andhra Jyothi apart from Vaartha and
Eenadu respectively on 09.06.2007.  It is the private complaint
dated 11.06.2007 of P. Prasad, the complainant, that was taken
cognizance for the offence punishable under Section 500 r/w 34
IPC by the lear…