Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974),

Section 125, 296, 311 Application for maintenance Affidavit tendered in

evidence by wife Application u/s 311 at the stage of arguments -- Certainly, wife
being the petitioner in the petition u/s 125 Cr.P.C. was not a formal witness and
could not have been examined by way of affidavit Wife was examined-in-chief by
way of affidavit -- At the time of her examination-in-chief, by way of affidavit, there
was no objection from the side of the husband -- It was only a suggestion put to her
in the cross-examination that her evidence could not be recorded by way of affidavit
and she expressed ignorance to that -- Mere fact that wife is an educated lady and a
doctor by profession, it is not expected that she is well-conversant with the
technical procedure of the Court regarding the evidence -- If due to mistake on the
part of her counsel, she was not examined-in-chief as per the provisions of the law,
her request to recall and examine herself u/s 311 in support of her petition cannot
be declined -- Mere fact that the application was moved by the wife at the stage of
arguments is no ground to decline request of the respondent-wife -- Examination of
the respondent-wife is essential to the just decision of the case Application u/s 311
was rightly allowed. 2015(2) L.A.R. 108 (P&H).

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949)

Section 13 -- Need of landlord Subsequent events Three new shops constructed
by landlord -- Death of landlord during the pendency of revision petition -- Effect of
Appellate authority did not considered the subsequent event of the death of
landlord and the factum that landlord having constructed three shops and rented
out during the pendency of appeal Order of eviction set aside, matter remitted to
the learned Appellate Authority for decision afresh in accordance with law. 2015(2)
L.A.R. 17 (P&H).

Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975), Section
23-A (Validation clause added by Haryana Act No. 4 of 2012)
Vires of Act Challenge to -- Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas
[Amendment and Validation] Act, 2012 [Haryana Act No. 4 of 2012] is upheld except
sub-Section [2] of the Validation Clause added below Section 23-A and inserted
through Section 5 of the Haryana Act No. 4 of 2012 -- Sub-Section [2] which is a part
of the Validation Clause and has been added to Section 23-A, is struckdown being
unconstitutional as it ultra-vires the permissible limits of Legislative powers -- Writ
petitions challenging the vires of Haryana Act No. 4 of 2012 are accordingly
dismissed, except to the extent above. 2015(2) L.A.R. 45 (P&H DB).

Haryana Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 (11 of 1994)

Section 176 -- Election of Panch -- Fathers name of winning candidate wrongly
mentioned on oath letter Writ jurisdiction -- Articles 226/227 of the Constitution
have been conceived and designed to address such peculiar situations like in the
present context to sub-serve the progress of election; facilitate its completion; and
further the election process -- It is a fit case to exercise the extra-ordinary powers
conferred by Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, so as to ensure that the
elected representative is not deprived of the office -- The mandate of the people is
deserved to be given effect to and the technicalities cannot be allowed to stand to
frustrate the right of the petitioner, especially when the Returning Officer/Presiding
Officer has admitted his mistake at the first instance -- Petitioner is declared as
winning candidate for the post of Panch. 2015(2) L.A.R. 99 (P&H).
New Garg Law House 85917-63903
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988), Section 166

Compensation in motor vehicle accident case Age of deceased Determination of

Widow of deceased stated that she was married to the deceased when she was 18
years old and her marriage lasted with him for about 12 years Deceased was
about 1-1/2 years older to her In such event, the age of the deceased should have
been more than 30 years This part is not disputed by the other side It is held
that the age was between 31 and 35 years and in view of the age of the deceased
multiplier of 16 would be applicable. 2015(2) L.A.R. 126 (P&H).

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949),

Section 13 -- Need of landlord Death of landlord during the pendency of revision

petition -- If the deceased landlord had any dependent member of the family it
could be assumed that the requirement pleaded extended also to the dependent
member of their family. 2015(2) L.A.R. 17 (P&H).

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 118, 139 -Legally enforceable liability Burdon of proof -- Provisions of the N.I.Act lay down
that initially, the complainant has to prove the existence of debt and other liabilities
and thereafter the burden shifts upon the accused to prove that the cheque was not
issued towards discharge of a lawful debt but was issued by way of security or any

other reason on account of some business transaction or was obtained unlawfully.

2015(2) L.A.R. 146 (P&H).
Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Writ of mandamus -- Writ of mandamus does not
lie against a private person not discharging any public duty. 2015(2) L.A.R. 26 (SC).

Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 (18 of 1961), Section 2(g)(5)
7, 13-A (Haryana) --

Shamilat deh Eviction petition -- Title dispute Onus of proof -- Having raised the
title dispute and after getting the eviction petition converted into the one u/s 13-A
of the 1961 Act, the onus to prove the ownership was on him. 2015(2) L.A.R. 23
(P&H DB).

Punjab Land Revenue Rules, Rule 15 -- Land Administration Manual, Para 307

Appointment of Lambardar -- Availability in village -- Availability of the Lambardar to

the village community is essential to do full justice to the duties of a Lambardar -- It
is not a part-time job, rather a Lambardar has to remain in the village round to
clock. 2015(2) L.A.R. 113 (P&H).
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881)
Section 118, 138, 139 -- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Section 34
Dishonour of cheque -- Legally enforceable liability Account book entries Bahi
entries -- Account books/bahi entries are not the instruments of advancement of
loan like pronote, bonds, or Bill of exchange etc. which can legally be enforced, as
recognised in the N.I. Act -- Entries in account books are only relevant u/s 34 of the
Indian Evidence Act, but such statements shall not alone be sufficient evidence to
charge any person with liability. 2015(2) L.A.R. 146 (P&H).

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988)

Section 166 Compensation in motor vehicle accident case Dependency of
deceased Calculation of -- Five members in the family of the deceased besides
himself but deduction was made only to the extent of 1/3rd for personal living
expenses Held, deduction is required to be made to the extent of 1/4th. 2015(2)
L.A.R. 126 (P&H).

Allotment of Industrial plot

Non-payment within time Cancellation of plot -- Allottee deposited an amount of
Rs.1,80,000/- to complete the payment of 50% of the cost of the plot on
27.11.2001, instead of the stipulated date i.e. 31.03.2001, without any demand and
permission from the appellant-Corporation On 27.07.2004, an aggregate sum of
Rs.4,27,117/-, was deposited by the allottee on a demand made by an officer of the
appellant-Corporation, to complete the balance payment of 50% of the cost of the
plot as well as the interest for delay in making payment Further, on 14.11.2006,
the allottee received a communication from the appellant-Corporation, demanding
certain documents to facilitate the handing over the possession of the plot to the
allottee -- However, the allotment in favour of the respondent was cancelled on
30.01.2008 and the amount was refunded with interest on 07.05.2010 on account of
delayed payment Held, appellant-Corporation has failed to satisfy the Court with
cogent and reasonable explanation as to why the money paid by the respondent for
the allotment of the plot was not returned to him by the appellant-Corporation
which has led him to believe that his delayed payment towards the cost of the
allotted plot had been accepted by the appellant-Corporation Cancellation order
rightly quashed. 2015(2) L.A.R. 6 (SC).

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949)

Section 13 -- Punjab Relief of Indebtedness Act, 1934 (7 of 1934), Section 31 -Arrears of rent -- Eviction of tenant -- Assessment of arrears of rent by Appellate
Authority Deposit under Indebtness Act Not a valid payment -- Tenant-bank
instead of complying with the order of the Appellate Authority took recourse to the
provisions of the Indebtedness Act and made an application before the Rent
Controller thereunder As per Atma Rams case 2005(2) L.A.R. 439 (SC), tenant is
required to deposit rent before the Rent Controller under the Rent Act but if instead,
the tenant deposits rent under the provisions of the Indebtedness Act, it is not a
valid tender and the tenant becomes liable to eviction It is a clear case where
despite order of assessment of rent by the Appellate Authority in terms of Rakesh
Wadhawan's case, 2003 (2) C.C.C. 361 (SC), compliance having not been made by
the tenant-bank, it has incurred liability of eviction. 2015(2) L.A.R. 14 (P&H).

Constitution of India
Article 226 -- Judicial order of civil court -- Writ of certiorari Maintainability of -Judicial orders of civil courts are not amenable to a writ of certiorari under Article
226. 2015(2) L.A.R. 26 (SC).

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988)

Section 166 Compensation in motor vehicle accident -- Offending vehicle
Acquittal in criminal case Effect of -- Acquittal or conviction of driver of the
offending vehicle by the criminal Court is hardly a circumstance to have bearing on
the findings of the Tribunal because the Tribunal is expected to reach its conclusion
on the basis of evidence brought before it by the parties. 2015(2) L.A.R. 117 (P&H).

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881)

Section 138 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 311, 313 -Dishonour of cheque Complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Additional evidence -- After
complainants evidence, statement u/s 313 of the accused, case was fixed for
arguments -- Petitioner/complainant want to summon and examine the concerned
Clerk/Record Keeper of the office of Excise and Taxation Officer along with the
record submitted before the office with regard to purchase of peddy by the
accused/company Held, evidence is based on the record of the office of the Excise
and Taxation Officer which cannot be manipulated by the complainant -- So there is
no question of filling any lacuna and the resultant prejudice to the respondents -Rather it will assist the Court to arrive at the just decision of the case Application
for additional evidence allowed. 2015(2) L.A.R. 121 (P&H).

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)

Section 90 -- Gift deed 30 year old document Presumption of -- U/s 90, before
any question of presuming a documents valid execution can emerge, the document
must purport and be proved to be thirty years old. 2015(2) L.A.R. 1 (SC).
Section 90 -- Gift deed 30 year old document Relevant date -- Generally
speaking, although the date on which the document has been tendered in evidence
or subjected to being proved/exhibited is the relevant date from which its antiquity
is to be computed, the court think it necessary to underscore that it should be
produced at the earliest so that it is not looked upon askance and with suspicion so
far as its authenticity is concerned. 2015(2) L.A.R. 1 (SC).
Section 90 -- Gift deed 30 year old document Presumption of -- Even if the
document purported or proved to be thirty years old, the appellant would not
axiomatically receive a favourable presumption, the Section 90 presumption being a
discretionary one. 2015(2) L.A.R. 1 (SC).

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)

Section 123 Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), Section 17, 34 Gift deed
Attesting witnesses Registration of -- Gift deed pertaining to immovable property
must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor and
attested by at least two witnesses -- Law does not mandate that the attesting
witnesses to a document must also be present at the time of its registration under
the Registration Act. 2015(2) L.A.R. 1 (SC).

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)

Order 37 Rule 3, 4 Agreement to sell Cheques of consideration dishonoured
Summary suit Defendant not appeared Ex-parte decree passed Held, debatable
issue does arise, opportunity to contest the suit given subject to the appellant
depositing the entire amount claimed in the suit but without interest or costs.
2015(2) L.A.R. 11 (SC).
Order 37 Rule 4 Ex-parte decree Setting aside of -- Setting aside of ex-parte
decree under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code cannot be allowed in routine and
special circumstances are required to be established -- However, the expression
special circumstances has to be construed having regard to the individual fact
situations -- The Court has to balance the equities and while safeguarding the
interest of the plaintiff, appropriate conditions can be laid down if the defendant
makes out a debatable case which may prime facie show injustice if the ex-parte
decree was not set aside. 2015(2) L.A.R. 11 (SC).
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)
Section 96, Order 41 Rule 21 First Appeal -- Power of Appellate Court -- Lower
appellate court could not tread on the jurisdiction point only while deciding the
appeal filed u/s 96 of the CPC -- Lower appellate court was enjoined upon an
obligation to frame points of determination under Order 41 Rule 31 CPC and ponder
upon oral and documentary evidence lead by the respective parties to the lis.
2015(1) L.A.R. 651 (P&H).
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882)
Section 53-A Object of Section 53-A of T.P. Act Part performance of contract
Possession given to buyer -- Section 53-A was inserted in 1929 on the
recommendation of the Special Committee, which was of the view that an illiterate
or ignorant buyer who had partly performed his part of contract required statutory
protection -- Special Committee was of the view that even after expiry of period of
limitation, the relationship between the transferor and transferee remains the same
as it was within the period of limitation and, therefore, the possession over the
property taken in part performance of an agreement is required to be protected
even if the period of limitation for bringing an action for specific performance has

expired -- The object of introduction of the above provision in the Transfer of

Property Act was to overcome the difficulty faced by the transferee in possession if
his claim of seeking specific performance of agreement has become barred by
limitation -- Protection of Section 53-A is available as defence and does not confer a
right on the basis of which a claim can be raised. 2015(1) L.A.R. 342 (P&H).

Section 53-A Transferee rights Condition required to be fulfilled by transferee -In order to defend or protect his possession, the transferee has to fulfil following
conditions:1)
there must be a contract to transfer for consideration any immovable
property;
2)
the contract must be in writing, signed by the transferor, or by someone on
his behalf;
3)
the writing must be in such words from which the terms necessary to
construe the transfer can be ascertained;
4)
the transferee must in part performance of the contract take possession of
the property, or of any part thereof;
5)

the transferee must have done some act in furtherance of the contract; and

6)
the transferee must have performed or be willing to perform his part of the
contract. 2015(1) L.A.R. 342 (P&H).

Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963)

Section 6 Constitution of India, Article 226, 227 -- Dispossession from immovable
property, forcibly Restoration of possession Writ Jurisdiction -- Petitioner was
thrown out with the help of State Administration -- High Court find that the
petitioner was locked out unlawfully when he was already in possession with the
help of police and he shall gain re-entry Institution of the suit u/s 6 of the Specific
Relief Act was surely the most appropriate remedy in a normal situation but if the
petitioner is up against the State administration which supports the private
respondents not merely outside the court but inside the court as well by a conduct
which is not appropriate, it requires that a court extends its arm of protection to the
petitioner High Court directed the administration to remove the lock within 24
hours and file a compliance report in 48 hours to the Registry Cost of Rs.10,000/was also imposed Private respondents forewarned against any action for
ejectment of the petitioner otherwise than by due process of law. 2015(1) L.A.R. 696
(P&H).

Section 10, 20 -- Agreement to sell Proof of Specific performance of agreement -Although existence of document has been proved on record but there is no proof of
contents of the document as scribe has not been examined S who acted on
behalf of the plaintiff has not been examined -- The only marginal witness K does
not state that it was read over to the executant -- As such document is clouded with
suspicious circumstances, such a document cannot be a ground for grant of
discretionary relief of specific performance. 2015(1) L.A.R. 390 (P&H).

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security

Interest Act, 2002, (54 of 2002)
Section 2(1)(o) Constitution of India, Article 14, 312 -- Non Performing Assets
Definition Challenge to -- Function of prescribing the norms for classifying a
borrowers account as a NPA is not an essential legislative function -- Laying down of
such norms requires a constant and close monitoring of the financial system
demanding considerable amount of expertise in the areas of public finance, banking
etc., and the norms may require a periodic revision -- All that activity involves too
much of detail and promptitude of action If the Parliament chose to define a
particular expression by providing that the expression shall have the same meaning
as is assigned to such an expression by a body which is an expert in the field
covered by the statute and more familiar with the subject matter of the legislation,
the same does not amount to any delegation of the legislative powers Contention
that amendment of the definition of the expression non-performing asset under
Section 2(1) (o) is bad on account of excessive delegation of essential legislative
function is untenable and is required to be rejected -- Submission that by
authorizing different REGULATORS to prescribe different norms for the identification
of a NPA with reference to different CREDITORS amount to unreasonable
classification is required to be rejected for the reason that all the CREDITORS do not
form a uniform/homogenous class -- To say that enabling them to follow different
norms would be violative of Article 14 would be wholly untenable -- Definition of the
expression NPA under Section 2(1)(o) of the Act is constitutionally valid. 2015(1)
L.A.R. 472 (SC).

Section 13(2), 13(3A), 13(4) -- Representation/objection contemplated under Section

13(3A) is required to be examined objectively -- Section 13 obligates the SECURED
CREDITOR to communicate the reasons for non-acceptance of the representation or
objections to the borrowers. 2015(1) L.A.R. 472 (SC).

Section 13(2), 13(4) -- Non Performing Assets Proceedings under SRFAESI Act -Financial Assets are sub-divided into 4 categories i.e. (i) standard, (ii) substandard,
(iii) doubtful, and (iv) loss, depending upon the length of the period for which the
installment of money is over due, such assets are classified as NPA -- Such a
classification is relevant and assumes importance in the decision making process of
the secured creditor u/s 13(2) -- Magnitude of the amount due and outstanding in a
given case, the reasons which prompted the borrower to default in the repayment
schedule, the nature of the business carried on by the defaulting borrower, the
overall prospects of the defaulters business, national and international market
conditions relevant to the business of a defaulter are some of the factors which are
germane to a decision that action u/s 13(4) is required to be taken against a
defaulting borrower -- Even in a case where on rational and objective consideration
of all the relevant factors including the representations/objections referred to under
Section 13(3A), the CREDITOR comes to a conclusion that steps contemplated under
Section 13(4) are required to be taken in the case of a particular defaulter, the
further question as to which one of the steps contemplated under Section 13(4) is
required to be taken or would meet the ends of justice is a matter for a further
rational decision on the part of the secured creditor. 2015(1) L.A.R. 472 (SC).

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)

Section 378(4) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138
Acquittal u/s 138 of N.I. Act Leave to appeal -- Judgment of acquittal, containing
valid reasons, cannot possibly be interfered with by High Court, in exercise of
limited jurisdiction u/s 378(4) Cr.PC, unless and until, the same is illegal, perverse
and without jurisdiction. 2015(1) L.A.R. 328 (P&H).

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986)

Section 13 (4)(6)(7), 21, 27, 27A Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (V of 1908), Order
21 Rule 32 Execution of Consumer Court order Remedies available -- Apart from
initiating proceedings u/s 27 of the Act, the alternative right is also available to
execute the order of the District Forum by invoking the provisions of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 under Order XXI read with the Rule 32 -- Execution of the decree in
the aforesaid terms is permissible in law in view of the provisions of Section 13(4),
(6) and (7) of the Act Held, the provisions of Order XXI read with the Rule 32 of
Code of Civil Procedure, are applicable in the execution proceedings before the
District Forum for executing the orders passed on the complaint of the appellant to
get the fruits of the same in the absence of either express or implied exclusion of

Code of Civil Procedure to execute the order of the District Forum. 2015(1) L.A.R.
418 (SC).

East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (50
of 1948)
Section 42 Delay -- Who files petition u/s 42 of the 1948 Act is liable to give an
explanation for the delay, if any, more so when there is an objection by the opposite
party -- It would be thus imperative upon the competent authority to decide such an
objection with a reasoned order. 2015(1) L.A.R. 585 (P&H DB).

Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 (32 of 1956)

Section 6 -- Constitution of India, Article 226 -- Custody of minor child Habeas
Corpus writ against father Courts of law are expected to strike a just and proper
balance between the requirements for welfare of minor children and the rights of
their respective parents over them Court has to exercise a jurisdiction which is
aimed at the welfare of the minors -- Court has to take into consideration the child's
ordinary contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable
surroundings, but over and above physical comforts, the moral and ethical values
have also to be noted -- Male child under five years of age and female child under
thirteen years of age, need most tender affection, the caring hand and company of
his natural mother -- Minor-son, aged 2 years, will remain with the mother and
minor-daughter, aged 6 years as she is studying in Nahan, will remain with father
at least till the academic session is over -- Minor-daughters studies cannot be
disturbed in the mid of the academic session, however both he parents were given
visitation rights -- Either of the parties shall approach, within reasonable time
preferably three months from today for the custody of minors, the competent court
i.e. Family Court or Guardian court under the provisions of the Guardians and Wards
Act, 1890 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 Any order regarding the
interim custody or visitation right passed by the competent court will be binding on
the parties as per law -- Till then, interim arrangement as ordered by High Court will
continue. 2015(1) L.A.R. 372 (P&H).

Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872)

Section 63 -- Extension of time -- Auction sale by DDA Auction purchaser is the
promisor and DDA is the promisee -- In such a situation, DDA can certainly
unilaterally extend the time for payment u/s 63 of the Contract Act as the time for
payment is not for DDAs own benefit but for the benefit of the auction purchaser.
2015(1) L.A.R. 542 (SC).

Section 74 Auction sale Allotment of plot Breach of contract Refund of earnest

money -- Forfeiture of earnest money Right of -- Forfeiture of earnest money took
place long after an agreement had been reached -- Amount sought to be forfeited is
without any loss being shown -- Far from suffering any loss, DDA has received a
much higher amount on re-auction of the same plot of land There has been no
breach of contract by the auction purchaser Earnest money order to be refunded
with 9 % interest per annum. 2015(1) L.A.R. 542 (SC).
Section 74 Breach of contract Damages Right of -- Section 74 reads Of the
consequences of breach of contract -- It is in fact sandwiched between Sections 73
and 75 which deal with compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of
contract and compensation for damage which a party may sustain through nonfulfillment of a contract after such party rightfully rescinds such contract -- It is
important to note that like Sections 73 and 75, compensation is payable for breach
of contract under Section 74 only where damage or loss is caused by such breach.
2015(1) L.A.R. 542 (SC).

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872)

Section 102 Agreement to sell Fraud Misrepresentation -- Onus of proof -- There
is a specific averment by defendant that he had not entered into the agreement, if,
at all, such an agreement is there same is the result of fraud, misrepresentation and
without notice and knowledge of the defendant -- Normally, the burden is on
defendant to prove such fraud, misrepresentation etc. but when specific allegations
are there then burden is on the plaintiff to prove that document is genuine and is to
the knowledge of defendant -- Otherwise also, it is settled principle of law that the
person, who claims some right on the basis of document, is required to positively
prove the same. 2015(1) L.A.R. 390 (P&H).
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)

Order 7 Rule 11 Suit for possession and recovery of arrears of rent Rejection of
plaint -- Rent Act became applicable during pendency of suit Held, subsequent
notification which came into force, would not take away the right of the landlord to
continue with the eviction proceedings instituted at a prior point of time. 2015(1)
L.A.R. 450 (P&H).

Order 21 Rule 32 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 13 (4)(6)
(7), 21, 27, 27A Execution of Consumer Court order Remedies available -- Apart
from initiating proceedings u/s 27 of the Act, the alternative right is also available to
execute the order of the District Forum by invoking the provisions of Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 under Order XXI read with the Rule 32 -- Execution of the decree in
the aforesaid terms is permissible in law in view of the provisions of Section 13(4),
(6) and (7) of the Act Held, the provisions of Order XXI read with the Rule 32 of
Code of Civil Procedure, are applicable in the execution proceedings before the
District Forum for executing the orders passed on the complaint of the appellant to
get the fruits of the same in the absence of either express or implied exclusion of
Code of Civil Procedure to execute the order of the District Forum. 2015(1) L.A.R.
418 (SC).

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)

Section 200, 204 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138
Section 138 Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act Power of attorney Cognizance by
Magistrate Power of -- Except mentioning in the cause title there is no mention of,
or a reference to the Power of Attorney in the body of the said complaint nor was it
exhibited as part of the said complaint -- In the list of evidence there is just a mere
mention of the words Power of Attorney, however there is no date or any other
particulars of the Power of Attorney mentioned in the complaint -- Even in the
verification statement, there is not even a whisper that she is filing the complaint as
the Power of Attorney holder of the complainant -- Even the order of issue of
process does not mention that the Magistrate had perused any Power of Attorney
for issuing process Magistrate wrongly took cognizance in the matter and the
Court below erred in putting the onus on the appellant rather than the complainant
-- Proceedings in question against the appellant are quashed. 2015(1) L.A.R. 499
(SC).

East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (III of 1949)

Section 13 Material impairment of value and utility of building -- Walls of the shop
which were having thickness of 13 inches were scrapped substantially to extend the
floor area of the shop -- In such endeavour of increasing the area, the archs have
also been removed -- Though scrapping has been done upto the extent of about 9'
on 13' tall walls but removal of the arch of the southern as well as western wall
adjoining with other, has considerably reduced the value and utility of both the
premises in possession of landlord. 2015(1) L.A.R. 526 (P&H).

Section 13 Material impairment of value and utility of building -- Parchhatti all over
has been laid thus, causing additional burden on the concerned walls -- Re-laying of
the roof with increased height in place of old roof in both the shops has permanently
changed the structural pattern clearly compromising with the safety of the building
with removal of load bearing walls and scrapping of other walls -- Fixing of iron grill
of the height of about 2 feet above the roof of the shop as also on the adjoining
shop concomitantly raising the height of the wall as well for banners has resulted in
putting of additional load on the roof resulting in material impairment of value and
utility of the premises. 2015(1) L.A.R. 526 (P&H).

Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (13 of 1977)

Section 15 -- Allotment of SCF Non-deposit of 15% amount within 30 days

Condonation of delay -- Letter of cancellation of allotment was issued on 9.1.1990 -On 8.2.2010, almost 20 years later, the petitioner made a representation to deposit
the 15% amount Petitioner cannot claim any right on the basis of a policy in
respect of concluded actions and cannot be permitted to raise any dispute after
such long delay Having failed to send the acceptance within 30 days and to pay
the amount and to seek extension of time for payment of 15% of the amount, no
concluded contract has come into existence. 2015(1) L.A.R. 369 (P&H DB).

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955)

Section 13, 28 Exparte divorce Setting aside of Power of Appellate Court -- High
Court while allowing the appeal preferred by the wife, set aside the decree passed
by the Family Court, by imposing costs of Rs.25,000/-on the husband and directed
the Family Court to lodge a complaint through Sheristedar of the Court with the
jurisdictional Police against the husband for the offences punishable under Sections
193, 417,419, 426, 464, 465 and 468 of IPC Only question framed by the High
Court is Whether the impugned judgment and decree call for our interference? -No question as to whether the husband played fraud on the Family Court and
obtained the decree of dissolution of marriage or whether the husband committed
any offence punishable under the provisions of Indian Penal Code was framed by
the High Court High Court failed to notice that this is a case in which there is a
disputed question of fact which cannot be decided without framing a proper issue
and in absence of evidence on record High Court presumed that wife never
appeared before the Family Court -- It cannot be presumed that the Family Court in
its order wrongly noted the presence of the husband and the wife -- Merely, because

of the fact that print out of the case papers of both the parties have been taken
from one and the same computer software it cannot be presumed that blank
Vakalatnama signed by wife was misused by the husband or he played fraud and
used the same to engage some other senior counsel -- Such finding of the High
Court is not based on evidence but on mere presumption and conjecture Order of
High Court set aside. 2015(1) L.A.R. 642 (SC).
To check piling up of cheque bounce cases in various courts, the Cabinet today
approved changes in Negotiable Instruments Act to provide for filing of such cases
only in places where cheque is presented.

NEW DELHI: To check piling up of cheque bounce cases in various courts, the
Cabinet today approved changes in Negotiable Instruments Act to provide for filing
of such cases only in places where cheque is presented.

The move is aimed at fast tracking of resolution of cheque bounce cases while
removing the ambiguities on jurisdictional issues.

"The clarity on jurisdictional issue for trying cases of cheque bouncing would
increase the credibility of the cheque as a financial instrument.

"This would help trade and commerce in general and allow lending institutions,
including banks, to continue to extend financing to the economy, without the
apprehension of the loan default on account of bouncing of a cheque," an official
statement said.

The Negotiable instruments (Amendment) Bill, 2015 will be pursued in the ongoing
session of Parliament, it added.

"The amendments are focused on clarifying jurisdiction related issues for filing
cases of offence committed under Section 138 the Negotiable Instruments Act,1881
(NI Act)," the release after the Cabinet meeting said.

The main amendment included is the stipulation that the offence of rejection/return
of cheque "will be enquired into and tried only by a court" within whose local

jurisdiction the bank branch of the payee, where the payee presents the cheque for
payment is situated.

Section 138 of the NI Act deals with the offence pertaining to dishonour of cheque
for insufficiency of funds in the drawer's account. It also provides for penalties in
case of dishonour of cheques.

The amendments have been proposed in the backdrop of difficulties expressed by

various stakeholders arising out of the recent legal interpretation of the place of
jurisdiction for filing cases under the Section to be the place of drawers' bank by
the Supreme Court
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908)
Order 21 Rule 32 Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986), Section 13 (4)(6)
(7), 21, 27, 27A Execution of Consumer Court order Remedies available -- Apart
from initiating proceedings u/s 27 of the Act, the alternative right is also available to
execute the order of the District Forum by invoking the provisions of Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 under Order XXI read with the Rule 32 -- Execution of the decree in
the aforesaid terms is permissible in law in view of the provisions of Section 13(4),
(6) and (7) of the Act Held, the provisions of Order XXI read with the Rule 32 of
Code of Civil Procedure, are applicable in the execution proceedings before the
District Forum for executing the orders passed on the complaint of the appellant to
get the fruits of the same in the absence of either express or implied exclusion of
Code of Civil Procedure to execute the order of the District Forum. 2015(1) L.A.R.
418 (SC).

Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952)

Section 8-A -- Allotment of Booth Sub-letting Cancellation of Booth -- Report of
SDM shows that allottee was present and at the site of business, Readymade
Garments were being sold and sales man were also working there Report also
noted sales upto 5.00 P.M. of the day was Rs.10,800/- -- On the second inspection
allottee was not present and the business was being carried on Even if the allottee
was not in a position to produce bank account details, sale and purchase
vouchers/cash memos, name of stock suppliers etc., it was incumbent upon the
SDM to record some independent evidence to affirm whether or not there was
subletting -- At the time of the second inspection the allottee has clearly contended
that he had gone to answer call of nature -- No adverse inference can be drawn in
this case if the petitioner was not available at the time of surprise inspection
Allottee is not proved to have parted with possession of the booth -- There is no

prohibition that the allottee cannot take help of a sales person and neither such
condition can be valid Cancellation of the Booth on the basis of such Inspection
Report is unjustifiable -- Orders of cancellation are illegal and are set aside. 2015(1)
L.A.R. 8 (P&H DB).

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)

Chapter XX, Section 251, 262 -- Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986),
Section 21, 27, 27A Executing Court passed order for three months imprisonment
and penalty of Rs.3,000/- -- State Commission held that District Forum has not
adopted the procure of Summary Trial and set aside the order Held, State
Commission has erred in not remanding the case to the District Forum, after it has
found fault with the order of the District Forum in convicting and sentencing the
officers for not following the procedure as provided under the Criminal Procedure
Code Matter remanded back to the District Forum with a direction to the District
Forum to follow the procedure under Section 262 read with Chapter XX, Section 251
of the Code of Criminal Procedure to initiate penal action against the respondents
u/s 27 of the Act for non compliance of the statutory provisions. 2015(1) L.A.R. 418
(SC).
Section 200, 204 -- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (26 of 1881), Section 138
Complaint u/s 138 of N.I. Act Power of attorney Cognizance by Magistrate
Power of -- Magistrate had taken cognizance of the complaint without prima facie
establishing the fact as to whether the Power of Attorney existed in first place and
whether it was in order Complaint against the appellant was not preferred by the
payee or the holder in due course and the statement on oath of the person who
filed the complaint has also not stated that he filed the complaint having been
instructed by the payee or holder in due course of the cheque Held, it was not
open to the Magistrate to take cognizance -- Proceedings in question against the
appellant are quashed. 2015(1) L.A.R. 499 (SC).

Constitution of India
Article 13 Object and reasons of Bill -- Objects and reasons are not voted upon by
the legislature -- If the enactment is otherwise within the constitutionally
permissible limits, the fact that there is a divergence between the objects appended
to the Bill and the tenor of the Act, cannot be a ground for declaring the law
unconstitutional. 2015(1) L.A.R. 472 (SC).
Article 14 -- Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), Section 74 Auction purchase
25% of bid amount deposited Remaining 75% remained unpaid Bid/allotment
cancelled and amount of 25% forfeited Suit for specific performance by bidder

Shortly after the suit the DDA auctioned the property for Rs.11.78 crores Held,
letter of cancellation and consequent forfeiture of earnest money was made without
putting the appellant on notice that it has to deposit the balance 75% premium of
the plot within a certain stated time -- In the absence of such notice, there is no
breach of contract on the part of the auction purchaser and consequently earnest
money cannot be forfeited -- It would be arbitrary for the DDA to forfeit the earnest
money on two fundamental grounds -- First, there is no breach of contract on the
part of the auction purchaser -- Second, DDA not having been put to any loss, even
if DDA could insist on a contractual stipulation in its favour, it would be arbitrary to
allow DDA as a public authority to appropriate Rs.78,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Eight
Lakhs) without any loss being caused -- Article 14 would apply in the field of
contract in this case. 2015(1) L.A.R. 542 (SC).

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (70 of 1971)

Section 12 Insulting words against judges Whether contempt of court -Appellant used the word sumbhan/sumbhanmar for judge, who passed the
judgment Words are pejorative or insulting epithets/abuses akin to calling a
person a fool or idiot Appellant is an advocate and also an ex-member of the
Legislative Assembly -- He is fully aware that while he has the right of freedom of
speech of expression, this postulates a temperate and reasoned criticism and not a
vitriolic, slanderous or abusive one; this right of free speech certainly does not
extend to inciting the public directly or insidiously to disobey Court Orders -- Judges
expect, nay invite, an informed and genuine discussion or criticism of judgments,
but to incite a relatively illiterate audience against the Judiciary, is not to be ignored
-- It was, not the Petitioners province, as exercising his freedom of speech, to
advise that if those judges have any self respect, they should resign and quit their
offices -- Appellant rightly convicted for contempt of court, however sentence of six
months imprisonment reduced to simple imprisonment for a period of four weeks.
2015(1) L.A.R. 535 (SC)
Authority
Applicability of Limitation Act -- Provisions of the 1963 Act apply only to 'courts' -Such courts may not be civil courts -- The forum that functions as a court or has
trappings of the court would be a court for the purposes of applicability of the 1963
Act -- Provisions of special statute would be required to be scanned for concluding
whether a body, authority or Tribunal empowered to hear appeals or revisions would
satisfy the test of being a court. 2015(1) L.A.R. 662 (P&H DB).

Bachat Land
Shamilat land Partition of land Jurisdiction of -- It is the Collector under the Act,
who alone can examine; whether the land vest with shamilat or not, even if it is a
Bachat land -- The Additional Director (Consolidation) exercising the powers of the
State Government does not have any jurisdiction to order partition of the so-called
Bachat land amongst the proprietors. Parkash Singh and others case, 2014(2) L.A.R.
1 (P&H Full Bench) relied. 2015(1) L.A.R. 71 (P&H DB).

Bahi entries
Evidential value -- Bahi entries are not the instruments of advancement of loan like
pronote, bonds or Bill of exchange etc., which can legally be enforced, as recognized
in the NI Act -- These entries are only relevant u/s 34 of The Indian Evidence Act,
1872, that too, in case, the same were kept regularly in the course of business -- At
the same time, such Bahi entries must be kept in conformity with some known
system of accountancy, either in the official language or customary language well
known to the parties and not otherwise -- Where the books produced in a case are
merely ledgers, these are not supported by any daybook or roznama, do not contain
entries of transactions and there is no daily opening or closing balance, the same
are meaningless -- Therefore, such Bahi entries cannot and indeed should not be
taken to be account book regularly kept in the course of business, as provided u/s
34 of The Indian Evidence Act. 2015(1) L.A.R. 328 (P&H).
Evidential value -- Maintainability of complaint u/s 138 of NI Act -- Bahi entries are
not negotiable instruments of advancement of loan, such as, pronote, bonds and Bill
of exchange etc., which can legally be enforceable, as contemplated by the NI Act -Entry in the Bahi Khata merely is an admission by its maker in his own favour and it
is only admissible in evidence if it is accepted by the opposite side (loanee) and not
otherwise -- Such entries shall alone be not sufficient to charge any person with
liability -- Complainant cannot adhere to initiate the criminal prosecution against the
respondent u/s 138 of the NI Act. 2015(1) L.A.R. 328 (P&H).

Banjar qadim land

Cultivation possession -- The person could not be in cultivating possession of the
land which was recorded as banjar qadim in the year 1950-51 -- Banjar qadim land
shown in column No.8 of the Jamabandi for the year 1950-51 negates the plea of
self-cultivating possession of the respondents as on 26.01.1950 -- Jamabandi
reveals that the land is exempted from land revenue/bachh which further negates

the applicability of Section 2(g)(viii) as the land was not assessed to land revenue.
2015(1) L.A.R. 570 (P&H DB).
Exclusion from Shamilat deh Landowner coming with the plea of exclusion of his
land from shamlat deh is required to establish that his land falls within one or more
of the exclusion clauses, from the date stipulated in the clause so invoked -- When
an exclusion clause invoked by the landowner does not stipulate any date for its
application, then such landowner is required to prove the ingredients of the
exclusion clause as on the date of enactment of 1961 Act i.e. 4.5.1961 -- A
proprietor claiming exclusion of his land under Section 2(g)(v) of the Punjab Village
Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961, thus, is required to prove that the land was
banjar qadim and was not used or earmarked for 'common purposes' of the village
according to the revenue record as it existed on 4.5.1961. 2015(1) L.A.R. 140 (P&H
DB).
If the land has not been harvested for four successive crops and has not been sown,
then such land is classified as Banjar Jadid or new fallow If it continues to be
uncultivated and the said entries are maintained for the next four harvests then
such land comes under the category of banjar qadim or old fallow The aforesaid
terminology shows that a banjar qadim land is a land which remained uncultivated
for 8 preceding harvests. 2015(1) L.A.R. 570 (P&H DB).
Land described as banjar qadim and is used for 'common purposes' of the village
according to revenue records would vest in Panchayat as shamlat deh -- Non-use of
such land for 'common purpose' would entail in bringing out the land from the ambit
of vesting in Panchayat as shamlat deh. 2015(1) L.A.R. 570 (P&H DB).
Shamlat deh There are three conditions to be complied with; (a) the person must
be cultivating the land which is part of the shamlat deh of the village; (b) he should
be cultivating such land for a period of 12 years immediately preceding the
commencement of the 1961 Act; and (c) he should be cultivating such land without
payment of rent or payment of charges in excess of land revenue and cess -- In view
of nature of land being banjar qadim the cultivation of the respondents over the
land in question cannot be presumed for a period of 12 years immediately
preceding the commencement of the 1961 Act. 2015(1) L.A.R. 570 (P&H DB).
At any time
Suo moto powers exercised after 8 years No doubt, Section 18(6) of the Haryana
Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 uses the expression 'at any time' but it cannot
be indefinite time -- The power has to be exercised within reasonable time -- It
would be unreasonable to hold that the Financial Commissioner has unlimited power
to entertain revision after lapse of several years. 2015(1) L.A.R. 81 (P&H).

Attesting witness
Presence of -- It is not necessary that both the witnesses should be present at the
same time. 2015(1) L.A.R. 173 (P&H DB).
Will -- A came for authenticating the Will by visiting the residence of the testatrix -Testatrix signed in his presence -- He received personal acknowledgment from the
testatrix that she has executed the Will On authenticating the Will A became an
attesting witness. 2015(1) L.A.R. 173 (P&H DB).

Auction purchase
25% of bid amount deposited Remaining 75% remained unpaid Shortly after the
suit the DDA auctioned the property for Rs.11.78 crores Held, letter of cancellation
and consequent forfeiture of earnest money was made without putting the appellant
on notice that it has to deposit the balance 75% premium of the plot within a
certain stated time -- It would be arbitrary for the DDA to forfeit the earnest money
on two fundamental grounds -- First, there is no breach of contract on the part of the
auction purchaser -- Second, DDA not having been put to any loss, even if DDA
could insist on a contractual stipulation in its favour, it would be arbitrary to allow
DDA as a public authority to appropriate Rs.78,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Eight
Lakhs) without any loss being caused -- Article 14 would apply in the field of
contract in this case. M/s. Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority &
Anr., 2015(1) L.A.R. 542 (SC).

Auction sale
Forfeiture of earnest money Right of -- Forfeiture of earnest money took place long
after an agreement had been reached -- Amount sought to be forfeited is without
any loss being shown -- Far from suffering any loss, DDA has received a much higher
amount on re-auction of the same plot of land There has been no breach of
contract by the auction purchaser Earnest money order to be refunded with 9 %
interest per annum. M/s. Kailash Nath Associates v. Delhi Development Authority &
Anr., 2015(1) L.A.R. 542 (SC).