Head Note

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881  - Section 138 , The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 378 (4)

Dishonour of Cheque - Offence by Company - Complaint - Acquittal - Leave to appeal - Dismissal by High Court - Respondent has adduced the argument that in the complaint the appellant has not taken the averment that the accused was the person incharge of and responsible for the affairs of the Company - Held that as the respondent was the Managing Director of and sole proprietor of M/s. Salvi Builders and Developers, there is no need of specific averment on the point - Respondent be made liable under Section 138 of the NI Act, even though the Company had not been named in the notice or the complaint - There was no necessity for the appellant to prove that the said respondent was incharge of the affairs of the company, by virtue of the position he held - Respondent is liable for the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act.

Topic(s)-Dishonour of Cheque - Vicarious Liability - Managing Director Liable, Conviction

Head Note

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 482

Delayed Criminal Proceedings - Quashing of Proceeding - Mere delay in completion of proceedings may not be by itself a ground to quash proceedings where offences are serious, but the Court having regard to the conduct of the parties, nature of offence and the extent of delay in the facts and circumstances of a given case, quash the proceedings in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of process of the Court.

Topic(s)-Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Delay - Proceedings Quashed

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  - Section 482 , Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 307

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Delay - Delayed criminal proceedings - Held that conduct of the complainant can certainly be taken into account - Complainant stood convicted in a cross case - At least for ten years after commencement of the trial, the complainant did not even bother to seek simultaneous trial of the cross case, the step which was taken for the first time in the year 2005 which could certainly have been taken in the year 1995 itself when the trial against respondent No.2 commenced - Having regard to the nature of allegations and entirety of circumstances, it will be unfair and unjust to permit respondent No.2 to proceed with a complaint filed 16 years after the incident against the appellants - Impugned order liable to be set aside and the proceedings in Criminal Complaint quashed.

Topic(s)-Quashing of Criminal Proceedings - Delay - Proceedings Quashed

Head Note

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 498-A , Section 304-B , The Indian Evidence Act, 1872  - Section 113-B , Section 106

Dowry Death - Presumption - Acquittal Set Aside - Death has occurred within 7 years of the marriage due to burn injuries and there were demands of dowry accompanied with the physical and mental cruelty against the deceased prior to her death - Post-mortem report has revealed the physical assault on her just before her death - Burden of proof must shift on the accused persons to explain the death of the deceased - Defence has made a cursory statement that the deceased caught fire from stove while cooking foo - No explanation as to why the deceased was not taken to hospital or why was the dead body left unattended to in the morning - Entire conduct of the accused persons is very suspicious and non-explanation of same means they have not discharged their burden of proof -Accused persons i.e. 'R' husband of the deceased and his father 'Y', who were ordinarily residents in the house where the deceased died of burn injuries, neither of the two accused persons has offered any reasonable explanation as to how did the deceased suffer the ante mortem injuries and died due to burn injuries hence guilty for commission of crime - Judgment and order of the Trial Court, so far as it convicted and sentenced 'R' and 'Y' restored.

Head Note

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 498-A , Section 304-B , The Indian Evidence Act, 1872  - Section 113-B , Section 106

Dowry Death - Presumption - Acquittal Set Aside - Death has occurred within 7 years of the marriage due to burn injuries and there were demands of dowry accompanied with the physical and mental cruelty against the deceased prior to her death - Post-mortem report has revealed the physical assault on her just before her death - Burden of proof must shift on the accused persons to explain the death of the deceased - Defence has made a cursory statement that the deceased caught fire from stove while cooking foo - No explanation as to why the deceased was not taken to hospital or why was the dead body left unattended to in the morning - Entire conduct of the accused persons is very suspicious and non-explanation of same means they have not discharged their burden of proof -Accused persons i.e. 'R' husband of the deceased and his father 'Y', who were ordinarily residents in the house where the deceased died of burn injuries, neither of the two accused persons has offered any reasonable explanation as to how did the deceased suffer the ante mortem injuries and died due to burn injuries hence guilty for commission of crime - Judgment and order of the Trial Court, so far as it convicted and sentenced 'R' and 'Y' restored.

Topic(s)-Dowry Death - Presumption - Acquittal Set Aside

Head Note

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 376

Rape - Acquittal - Major inconsistency in the testimony of both PW2 and PW3 which makes their statement unworthy of credit - Conduct of PW2 seems to be uncharacteristic of an uncle as he makes no mention of his raising any alarm or running towards the accused to apprehend him on seeing that the accused was sexually assaulting the prosecutrix - Medical evidence of Dr. on analysis seems to be not wholly supportive to the case of the prosecution -Medical examination of the prosecutrix was conducted within 12 hours of the alleged incident of rape - Had there been rape the prosecutrix must have bleeded fresh during the medical examination, but that did not happen -. This shows that, probably, the sexual intercourse was done more than 24 hours back - In fact, Dr. in her crossexamination has said that rupture of hymen was at the most 2-3 days prior to the medical examination - In her deposition Dr. has said in her statement that the girl she had examined was a healthy and 'normal' one - However, there is no dispute that the prosecutrix was far from normal as she was suffering from some mental disorder - Even when she was examined in Court, she was found to be of unsound mind - It would be highly unlikely and assumptuous to say that even after conducting the whole examination of the prosecutrix, Dr. may not have come to know of the mental disorder of the prosecutrix - Case of the prosecution suffers from inherent inconsistencies and flaws -Appeal liable to be dismissed.

Topic(s)-Rape - Acquittal

Head Note

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996  - Section 34

Arbitration - Privity of Contract - Arbitral award - Objection against - Arbitration Agreement was only between the appellant and the respondent - ONGC was not a party to the Arbitration Agreement - When a dispute had arisen between the appellant and the respondent in relation to payment of money, the appellant had initiated the arbitration proceedings - As the ONGC was not a party to the Arbitration Agreement, it could not have been represented before the Arbitral Tribunal - If the ONGC was not a party before the Arbitral Tribunal, the Tribunal could not have made any Award making the ONGC liable to make payment to the appellant -Majority view of the Arbitral Tribunal was to the effect that the ONGC, not being a party to any contract or Arbitration Agreement with the appellant, could not have been made liable to make any payment to the appellant - Impugned judgment delivered by the High Court liable to be set aside - ONGC held not liable to make payment, as rightly decided by the Arbitral Tribunal, to the appellant but the payment shall have to be made by the respondent, who had given a sub- contract to the appellant - Majority view of the Arbitral Tribunal on the above issue confirmed and the view of the High Court is not accepted.

Topic(s)-Arbitration - Privity of Contract

Head Note

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996  - Section 31 (7)

Arbitration Award - Interest - Parties to the contract had agreed to the fact that interest would not be awarded on the amount payable to the contractor under the contract - They were bound by their understanding - Having once agreed that the contractor would not claim any interest on the amount to be paid under the contract, he could not have claimed interest either before a civil court or before an Arbitral Tribunal - Held that the Arbitral Tribunal ought not to have awarded interest to the respondent from the date of reference till the date of the award.

Topic(s)-Arbitration - Interest - No interest allowed

Head Note

Indian Succession Act, 1925  - Section 372 , Section 63 , The Indian Evidence Act,1872  - Section 68

Will - Proof of Execution - Succession Certificate - Evidence showed that these two attesting witnesses have been able to satisfactorily prove the execution of the Will dated 15.11.2023 and the attestation thereof by two witnesses, as required in law - Signature of the testator on these documents has been endorsed by both the handwriting experts - Report of the Forensic Science Laboratory also corroborates this finding - View expressed by NAW 1 that though the signatures are genuine, those had been obtained on blank papers, which later on were converted into the Will, in the face of the overwhelming testimony of AW 3, and A4, had been rightly rejected by the High Court - Recitals of the Will also provide sufficient justification for the bequest in favour of Respondent No. 1 - The fact that wife and daughter of the testator had, at all relevant time, supported the Respondent No. 1 in his initiatives to obtain the succession certificate is also a formidable factor in his favour as well as in endorsement of the genuineness of the Will, dated 15.11.2023 - Will dated 23.12.2023 though had been registered yet no steps had been taken by the non-applicants to obtain the probate thereof - Dispensation made by the testator in favour of the Respondent No. 1 cannot be repudiated to be in defiance of logic or unfair vis-à-vis the other members of the family - Do not find as well, any vitiating or suspicious circumstance invalidating the bequest - Conclusions recorded by the High Court held to be plausible being based on the materials on record and thus do not warrant any interference in the appeals.

Topic(s)-Will - Proof of Execution - Will proved

Head Note

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 376

Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, Rule 12(3) - Rape - Age Determination - Held that the High Court should have relied firstly on the documents as stipulated under Rule 12(3)(b) of the Rules, 2007 and only in the absence, the medical opinion should have been sought - Trial Court has also dealt with this aspect of the ossification test and held that in the present case the ossification test is not the sole criteria for determination of the date of birth of the prosecutrix as her certificate of birth and also the certificate of her medical examination had been enclosed - Keeping in view the medical examination reports, the statements of the prosecution witnesses which inspire confidence and the certificates proving the age of the prosecutrix to be below 16 years of age on the date of the incident, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court liable to be set and the judgment and order passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge convicting the respondent upheld - Respondent directed be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the sentence.

Topic(s)-Rape - Minor - Age Determination - Conviction

Head Note

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 302 , Section 34

Murder - Conviction - Eye witness - Relation witness - Testimony of - Ocular account of the incident presented by the PW 3 has been in graphic details - He did not vacillate in identifying the appellants - He also could relate the weapons of assault used by them - Injuries sustained by the deceased in course of the incident and those detected in the post-mortem examination are compatible with each other - Seizure of the weapons of assault vis-à-vis the appellants based on their statements of disclosure and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, also establish their irrefutable nexus with the crime - As per the testimony of the doctor performing the post-mortem examination, the time of death does tally with the one of the incident - Testimony of PW 3 not liable to be rejected on the ground that his conduct had been unusual at the place of the occurrence, he having kept himself aloof therefrom instead of attempting to save his brothers who were under murderous attack by a group of assailants - On being confronted with such an unforeseen and sudden situation, it is quite likely that individuals would react differently and if the PW 3, being petrified by such unexpected turn of events, being in the grip of fear and alarm, as a matter of reflex hid himself from the assailants, his version of the episode is not liable to be discarded as a whole as the same is otherwise cogent, coherent and compact - Participation in the gory brutal attack of the appellants with the lethal weapons resulting in death of two persons is proved beyond reasonable doubt - Findings recorded by the courts below upheld.

Topic(s)-Murder - Conviction Upheld

Head Note

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 302 , Section 34

Murder - Acquittal - Appeal against Acquittal - Murder - Sole eye witness - Testimony of - Appreciation of evidence - Evidence of the sole witness needs to be considered with caution and after testing it against other material - Such evidence must inspire confidence and ought to be beyond suspicion - Held it is doubtful whether PW2 could be called a natural and truthful witness and could be completely relied upon - The movements of 'A' deceased are also not established to show that he was actually there as suggested by the witness -Even minutest detail was gone into to locate any material which could possibly lend corroboration to the deposition of PW2 but no such material was found - Two facts, that the baithak was of ownership of the respondents and that the body of 'A' was found there, though very crucial, cannot by themselves be sufficient to fix the liability - The baithak was not part of the house, was across the road and apparently accessible to others -Presence of respondentswhether some or all of them, has not been fully established - Material on record definitely falls short and the respondents are entitled to benefit of doubt - View taken by the High Court affirmed and appeals liable to be dismissed.

Topic(s)-Murder - Acquittal

Head Note

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 147 , Section 148 , Section 149 , Section 302

Murder - Acquittal Set Aside - Appreciation of evidence - Unlawful assembly - Common object - Murder - Dying declaration - Statement Ext. P-20 leading to the registration of crime as well as statement Ext. P-17 recorded by the Executive Magistrate are dying declarations by deceased - Both these statements are consistent and name the present respondents and state the role played by them in surrounding deceased and giving cries that he be beaten and should not be left - Both the statements clearly referred to the presence of PW13 - In the light of the eye witness account and the post mortem report it is quite clear that the respondents were present when deceased was burning alive - Sequence of narration certainly shows that they were waiting in ambush - It may be that only two of them set deceased afire but the others definitely ensured by surrounding deceased that he would not be allowed to escape - Further, throwing of burning tyre and the sword would also indicate the active role played by them - Even if one of them was ready with a sword, that is clearly indicative of the level of preparedness on their part - No reason how they could not be said to be members of unlawful assembly - It was a crime which was committed by all of them guided by same purpose, acting in concert achieving the result that was desired - The intent of the entire assembly was clear, eloquently established by their presence, preparedness and participation -Assessment made by the High Court in the present case is completely unsustainable and against the record - Judgment and order of acquittal rendered by the High Court liable to be set aside and the judgment of conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court against the respondents restored.

Topic(s)-Murder - Acquittal Set Aside - Conviction

Head Note

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 302 , Section 34

Murder - Acquittal set aside - Appreciation of evidence - Murder - Sole eyewitness - Testimony of - Motive - Testimony of PW1 held to be completely trustworthy - Out of three infirmities found by the High Court, one regarding place of occurrence held to be not correct at all - First information report need not contain every single detail and every part of the case of the prosecution - However, assuming them to be improvements, the basic substratum of the matter does not get affected by such improvements at all - Even after segregating the part which appears to be introduced as improvement, the testimony of PW1 is clear and creditworthy - There was strong motive for the respondents to commit the murder in question is also clear from the record and the trial court had accepted that the respondents had strong motive to commit the crime - The finding as regards motive has not even been touched by the High Court -The view which weighed with the High Court in acquitting the accused cannot be termed as a possible view in the matter PW1 is a natural witness whose presence at the time and place of incident is established and is worthy of acceptance - In the original reporting PW1 had attributed lalkara to respondent 'B' alone while the tractor was being driven by respondent 'O', which meant that the other two accused, though sitting on the tractor were not attributed any overt act - Benefit of doubt given to the other two accused, namely, 'L' and 'G' - Acquittal of 'B' and 'O' set aside and e the order of conviction as recorded against them by the trial court for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 34 IPC restored -Do not deem it appropriate to restore the sentence of death and the appropriate sentence in the matter ought to be sentence for imprisonment for life.

Topic(s)-Murder - Acquittal Set Aside - Conviction

Head Note

Prevention of Corruption Act,1988  - Section 7 , Section 13 (1) ,  (2)

Corruption - Conviction - Appeal against conviction - Illegal gratification - Trap case - Versions of PW1 and PW2 are completely consistent establishing the basic ingredients of demand and acceptance - Tainted currency notes were found on the person of the appellant - Explanation given by him soon after the incident through his letter dated 10.06.2024 is completely different from the theory put forth while the appellant examined himself as DW2 - Demand and acceptance thus not only stand fully established but the presumption invocable under Section 20 of the Act also stood unrebutted - Judgment and order of the trial Court convicting the appellant affirmed.

Topic(s)-Corruption - Conviction

Head Note

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 148 , Section 149 , Section 341 , Section 302

Murder - Acquittal Upheld - Appeal against acquittal - Findings by High Court that the conduct of PW15 police officer who reached the place of occurrence on receipt of telephonic information unexplainable in that he had chosen not to record the statements of two police constables who were present at the site and one of them was injured and also had chosen not to ask questions to injured S' - PW15 has not explained as to why he had not made any inquiry in the village itself - Registration of crime on the basis of a written FIR which was scribed by PW11 and brought to the Police Station by PW1 was not found to be bona fide -There was unexplained delay in registering the crime and it was extremely doubtful whether PW1 was an eye witness to the occurrence - In the original FIR, the name of PW2 was not mentioned at all, creating doubts regarding her presence - If PW13 had tried to cover her bleeding husband, her blood stained sari should have been produced on record - Her statement was also recorded two days after the incident, again creating a situation of doubt - Held that the reasons stated by the High Court while acquitting the respondent are quite possible from the evidence on record and the same upheld and appeal liable to be dismissed.

Topic(s)-Murder - Acquittal

Head Note

Civil Law  - Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee

Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act, 1961, Section 3(1), 16 and 21 - Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation General Regulations, 1961, Regulation 22 - Bank Deposits - Insurance of - Liability of Appellant Corporation - As per the Scheme of Section 16(1), upon the bank being ordered to be wound-up, the original petitioners and other depositors had a right to recover Rs.1 lakh or the amount deposited, whichever was less, from the Official Liquidator - After payment to the above extent is made to each depositor, if any amount is available at the disposal of the Official Liquidator, which he might have recovered from the borrowers or from other sources, he has to pay the said amount to the extent to which the amount had been paid by the Corporation as per the provisions of Section 21 of the Act - High Court or any other authority has no power to direct payment in excess of Rs.1 lakh by ignoring statutory provisions of the Act and the Regulations made thereunder - High Court had exceeded its authority while giving a direction to the Official Liquidator to make payment to the depositor amount in excess of Rs.1 lakh, which is not in consonance with the statutory provisions and therefore liable to be set aside - Official Liquidator and the Special Officer directed to act in accordance with the statutory provisions.

Topic(s)-Bank deposits - Insurance of - Liability of Insurer

Head Note

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Order XXXIX Rule (1) ,  Rule (2) ,  Rule (3)

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 12 and 19 - Ad interim injunction - Violation of - Contempt of Court - Order dated 06.08.2023 was an ex parte one - In such circumstances, no sooner the defendants (appellants) entered appearance in the civil suit and filed their pleadings in reply to the Notice of Motion, the Court which is seized of the main case should have made sincere endeavour to dispose of the Notice of Motion on merits in the light of the mandate contained in Order 39 Rule 3A of the Code which provides that the Court shall make an endeavor to finally dispose of the application within 30 days from the date on which the ex parte injunction was granted - Held that it would be apposite to request the learned Single Judge to decide Notice of Motion arising out of Civil Suit on merits in accordance with law - Till it is decided the contempt proceedings out of which these appeals arise stayed - After the disposal of the Notice of Motion, the contempt proceedings may be decided in accordance with law including its maintainability etc.

Topic(s)-Ad Interim Injunction - Violation of - Contempt stayed

Head Note

Motor Vehicles Act,1988  - Section 166 , Section 168

Compensation - Deduction - Multiplier - Future prospectus - Self-employed - Deceased bachelor - Deduction ordinarily in the case of a bachelor at 50 % - There are no such exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons for deviation on the basis of evidence and therefore deduction of 50% towards the personal and living expenses is not to be disturbed - Deceased who was self-employed being of the age of 30 years, 50% is the required addition while computing future prospectus - Multiplier of 13 applied taking into account the age of dependent parents of the deceased - Held that the multiplier is to be used with reference to the age of the deceased - Multiplier, in the case of the age of the deceased between 26 to 30 years is 17 - There is no dispute or grievance on fixation of monthly income as Rs.12,000.00 by the High Court - Thus, the appellants are entitled to compensation of Rs.18,36,000.00 towards loss of dependency - There shall be no change on the amounts awarded by the High Court on other heads or on rate of interest.

Topic(s)-MACT - Compensation - Compensation enhanced

Head Note

Indian Penal Code,1860  - Section 304-B , Section 498-A , Section 34 , The Indian Evidence Act, 1872  - Section 32 (1)

Dying Declaration - Dowry Death - Appeal against Conviction - Appreciation of evidence - Dying declaration Ext. P-6 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate in the presence of a doctor who had certified about the fitness of 'S' before and after recording of such statement - There was not even a suggestion in the cross examination of the Judicial Magistrate that any of the relations of 'S' were present when such statement was recorded nor is there any circumstance which could cast a doubt about the genuineness of Ext. P-6 as recorded by the Judicial Magistrate - Further the certification by the doctor was also not put in challenge - No inconsistency between the statement Ext. P-13 recorded by PW10 Police official on one hand and the dying declaration Ext. P-6 recorded by the Judicial Magistrate on the other as regards the involvement of the appellant - Conviction of the appellants held to be absolutely correct and justified.

Topic(s)-Dowry Death - Dying Declaration - Conviction

Head Note

The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996  - Section 11 (6)

Appointment of Arbitrator - Disputes and differences have arisen between the parties with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to receive the amount of bills raised by it - Clause D12 of the Supply Agreement, which according to the respondent, governs the matter specifically provides for reference of all disputes and differences to "the arbitration authority under provisions of the Act, 1996 - Petitioner held entitled to have its claim to receive the aforesaid amount of the bills adjudicated by an Arbitrator appointed by the Court under Section 11(6) of the Act - A former judge of the Apex Court appointed as the Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties at an early date.

Topic(s)- Appointment of arbitrator - Arbitrator appointed

Head Note

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894  - Section 4 , Section 5-A , Section 17 , Constitution of India, 1950  - Article 14 , Article 226

Land Acquisition - Challenge as to - Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and laches - Appellants were not aggrieved by the acquisition per se in the manner it was done by the respondents - As per their own case, they became aggrieved only when they found that land was not utilised for the purpose for which it was acquired namely industrial development but a large portion thereof was sought to be given away to the builders for development of the land as residential - It is contended by the authorities that merely because the part of the land is utilised for residential purpose, it cannot be said that the respondents- authorities have not adhered to the purpose for which the land is acquired - As per them, this would be complimentary purpose to the main purpose - In all these cases, after the land was acquired, which was of very large quantity and in big chunks, further steps were taken by passing the award, taking possession and paying compensation - In many cases, actual possession was taken and in rest of the cases, paper possession was taken where because of the land under Abadi, actual possession could not be taken on spot immediately - Fact remains that in many such cases where possession was taken, these land owners/appellants even received compensation - All these petitions have been filed only thereafter which may not be maintainable stricto sensu.

Topic(s)-Land Acquisition - Challenge as to - Delay and Laches - No quashing of acquisition - Benefits granted

Constitution of India, 1950  - Article 14 , Article 226 , Article 136 , The Land Acquisition Act, 1894  - Section 4 , Section 5-A , Section 17

Land Acquisition - Challenge as to - Delay and Laches - A scenario where, on the one hand, invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the right to file objection under Section 5A of the Act, is found to be illegal - On the other hand there is a situation where because of delay in challenging these acquisitions by the land owners, developments have taken in these villages and in most of the cases, third party rights have been created - High Court considered the ground realities of the matter and arrived at a more practical and workable solution by adequately compensating the land owners in the form of compensation as well as allotment of developed Abadi land at a higher rate i.e. 10% of the land acquired of each of the land owners against the eligibility and to the policy to the extent of 5% and 6% of Noida and Greater Noida land respectively - Held that keeping in view all these peculiar circumstances, that these are not the cases where this Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution - However, made clear that directions of the High Court are given in the aforesaid unique and peculiar/specific background and, therefore, it would not form precedent for future cases.

Topic(s)-Land Acquisition - Challenge as to - Delay and Laches - No quashing of acquisition - Benefits granted

Head Note

Constitution of India, 1950  - Article 14 , Article 226

Registration as Contractor - Character Certificate - Non Issue of - In the first order of refusal passed by Magistrate he opined that since the appellant's husband had criminal cases registered against him, she was disentitled from claiming a certificate of good moral character -Held that it is difficult to appreciate how criminal cases registered against the husband of the appellant could possibly deny her a certificate of good moral character - Commissioner was perfectly justified in setting aside the order passed by the District Magistrate and directing him to consider the request for the issue of a certificate based on the character of the applicant and not her relative or member of the family -Certificate again denied not because the appellant or anyone in her family was implicated in any criminal case but on the ground that she had no experience in getting the contract works executed - Reasoning given by the District Magistrate held to be wholly irrelevant - Order passed by the High Court affirming the order of District Magistrate liable to be set aside - District Magistrate to reconsider the matter and dispose of the application for grant of a character certificate keeping in view the observations made in the judgment -Even when the character certificate is issued by the District Magistrate in favour of the appellant, the Competent Authority shall be free to examine the prayer for registration or renewal in accordance with law having regard to the requirements that already exist or may be prescribed on the subject by the authority competent to do so.

Topic(s)-Character Certificate - Non Issue of - Direction to reconsider as per observations

Head Note

The Limitation Act, 1963  - Section 5

Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Held that the expression 'sufficient cause' is to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice - When there is no negligence, inaction or want of bonafide is imputable to the appellants, the delay has to be condoned -Discretion is to be exercised like any other judicial discretion with vigilance and circumspection - Discretion is not to be exercised in any arbitrary, vague or fanciful manner - True test is to see whether the applicant has acted with due diligence.

Topic(s)-Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Condoned

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Order IX Rule (13) , The Limitation Act, 1963  - Section 5

Ex parte Order - Application to Set aside - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient cause - Held that while exercising the discretion for setting aside the ex-parte decrees or condoning the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decrees, the court is competent to direct the defendants to pay a portion of the decreetal amount or the cost - Imposition of such an unreasonable and onerous condition of depositing the entire suit claim of Rs.1,50,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/- respectively condition precedent for condonation by trial Court - Apex Court passed the conditional order that subject to deposit a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- before the trial court, notice shall be issued to the respondents and the appellants have deposited Rs.50,00,000/- before the trial court - Since the appellants have satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay and with a view to provide an opportunity to the appellants to contest the suit, the impugned order is liable to be set aside -Delay in filing the applications to set aside the ex- parte decrees is condoned and the ex-parte decrees passed liable to be aside and the suits are ordered to be restored to file.

Topic(s)-Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Condoned

Head Note

Civil Law  - Will

M.P. Land Revenue Code, 1959, Section 164 (prior to Amendment in 1961) - Right of Bhumiswami - Will - Held that right of Bhumiswami to transfer his land by way of a Will was not recognized by law when 'A' executed the Will dated 21.1.2024 - She had no right to execute the same prior to amendment of Section 164 of the Code - Property could only be devolved in the order of succession as mentioned in Section 16 -. Thus, the question of proving genuineness of the Will need not be considered - However, the claim of 'R' does not stand valid in view of the unamended Section 164 of the Code as she was not the nearest surviving heir of the husband of 'A' since her husband (son of the brother-in- law of 'A's father-in-law) was alive on the date of filing the suit by 'R'.

Topic(s)-Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Remand back

The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908  - Order VI Rule (17)

Amendment of Plaint - Plaintiffs based their title solely on the basis of a will executed by 'A' - An application for amendment making claim on the basis of inheritance that too through 'H' filed after 30 years of filing of suit at the appellate stage - Rejected by High Court holding that amendment totally goes to change the premises of the suit after a lapse of more than 40 years - Rules of procedure are intended to be a handmaid to the administration of justice - A party cannot be refused just relief merely because of some mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infraction of rules of procedure - Court always gives relief to amend the pleading of the party, unless it is satisfied that the party applying was acting malafide or that by his blunder he had caused injury to his opponent which cannot be compensated for by an order of cost - High Court ought not to have rejected the application - Finding recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment on substantial question no.2 set aside - Matter is remitted back to the High Court to decide the substantial question no.2 afresh, taking into consideration the relief sought for by the plaintiff-appellant by amending the plaint.

Topic(s)-Civil Procedure - Amendment of Plaint - Remand back

Head Note

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894  - Section 4

Land Acquisition - Held that that unless the Declaration under Section 6 or the Notification under Section 4 of the Act is not explicitly quashed in toto or in its wholeness by the Court, the benefits of relief granted by the Court would be effective only qua the parties before it - Those who have missed the boat in challenging the acquisition proceedings, who sat idle and have let the grass grow under their feet cannot, thereafter, be permitted to jump on the bandwagon of others who entered the portals of the Court at the appropriate time and thereafter obtained favourable orders.

Topic(s)-Land Acquisition - Challenge as to - Valid

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894  - Section 4 , Section 6

Land Acquisition - Challenge as to - In the Judgment dated 08.01.2024 passed by the High Court in the case of 'A', it has been clarified that "only those persons, who are the owners on the date of Section 4(1) Notification alone can question the validity of the acquisition…when the property was already notified for acquisition, if the petitioners had come to purchase the property, they cannot have any right to agitate with regard to procedural violation." - There is thus no confusion that the relief of quashing of the Declaration under Section 6 of the Act was expressly limited to some while being plainly denied to others, signifying thereby, that the Declaration under Section 6 was left untouched in the other cases - In case of 'A', the Court annulled the Notification issued under Section 4 on the premises of limitation. - This would mean that the rest of the acquisition proceedings were left untouched by the Court in case of 'A' - Impugned Judgment liable to be set aside.

Topic(s)-Land Acquisition - Challenge as to - Valid

The Land Acquisition Act, 1894  - Section 4 , Section 6 , Section 16

Land acquisition - Challenge as to - Respondents had purchased the suit land after the Award had been passed and possession of the land had been taken by the State, they could not have acquired any rights against the State - 'P' did not bring down the acquisition proceedings qua his land, but on the contrary, by accepting compensation, had manifested his acceptance of the Award - Once the land stood vested in the State under Section 16 of the Act, 'P' and his vendees, namely the Respondents, could not have created and engineered rights or interests in the property against the State, except the right of seeking and receiving enhanced compensation.

Topic(s)-Land Acquisition - Challenge as to - Valid