Transcript
Vol -VII
Part-I
January, 2012
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS
Compiled by
Tamil Nadu State Judicial Academy
Chennai – 28
INDEX
S. NO.
IMPORTANT CASE LAWS
PAGE NO.
1
Supreme Court - Civil Cases
01
2
Supreme Court - Criminal Cases
07
3
High Court - Civil Cases
13
4
High Court - Criminal Cases
22
i
TABLE OF CASES WITH CITATION
SUPREME COURT CITATION OF CIVIL CASES
SL.
NO.
CAUSE TITLE
CITATION
PAGE NO.
1
Mangluram Dewangan Vs Surendra Singh & Ors
2011 (6) CTC 214
1
2
Janak Dulari Devi & Anr Vs Kapildeo Rai & Anr
2011 CIJ 336 REJ
2
3
Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors Vs Nirmala Devi and Ors
2011 CIJ 461 ALJ
3
4
National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Shyam Singh and Ors
(2011) 8 MLJ 551 (SC)
4
5
Suba Singh & Anr Vs Davinder Kaur & Anr
2011-4-L.W. 610
5
6
Mathai M. Paikeday Vs C.K. Antony
2011-4-L.W. 618
5
7
Venkatachalam. C Vs Ajitkumar C. Shah and Ors And Bar Council of India Vs
Sanjay R. Kothari and Ors
2011 (6) CTC 771
6
8
Himani Alloys Ltd Vs Tata Steel Ltd
(2011) 7 MLJ 843 (SC)
6
9
Sumatiben Maganlal Manani. V (dead) by L.Rs. Vs Uttamchand Kashiprasad
Shah and Anr
(2011) 7 MLJ 1432 (SC)
6
ii
SUPREME COURT CITATION OF CRIMINAL CASES
SL.
NO.
CAUSE TITLE
CITATION
PAGE NO.
2011 (6) CTC 228
7
1
Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin Vs State of Maharashtra & Anr
2
Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State of Punjab & Anr
2011 CIJ 549 SC (1)
8
3
State of Rajasthan Vs Arjun Singh and Ors
2011 CIJ 558 CTJ (1)
9
4
Mrinal Das & Ors Vs State of Tripura
2011 CIJ 632 CTJ (1)
9
5
Bhagwan Dass Vs State (NCT) of Delhi
(2011) 4 MLJ (Crl) 746 (SC)
11
6
Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral Vs State of Maharashtra
(2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 841 (SC)
11
7
Lakhan Lal and Anr Vs State of Bihar
(2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 936 (SC)
12
iii
HIGH COURT CITATION OF CIVIL CASES
S.NO
CAUSE TITLE
CITATION
PAGE NO.
1
2
Magarajan. C Vs The District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore and Anr
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3825 of 2011 :- S. Srinivasan Vs G.D. Selvaraj And C.R.P. (NPD)
No 3826 of 2011:- G.S. Dhandapani Vs G.D. Selvaraj And C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3827 of
2011:- R. Govindaraj and Anr Vs G.D. Selvaraj And C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3828 of 2011:R. Govindaraj Vs G.D. Selvaraj
Navaneethakrishnan & Ors Vs S.A. Subramania Raja
Sree. U Vs U. Srinivas
Perumal Vs V. Balasubramanian
Astral Cables Ltd., Delhi – 6 Vs National Small Industries Corporation Ltd (A
Government of India Enterprise) rep. By its Chairman cum Managing Director, 111B/118, Sector-18, Shopping Complex, Noida 201 301 and Chennai and Anr
Thulasi. V Vs Indian Overseas Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, Chennai 600 079
Velu Naicker Vs Elumalai Naicker
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chennai - 1 Vs Sasikala Devi (deceased) and Ors
Arunachalam. A.N Vs T. Sivaprakasam and Anr
2011 (6) CTC 140
2011-4 –TLNJ 337 (Civil)
13
13
2011 CIJ 352 REJ
2011-4 –TLNJ 358 (Civil)
2011 (5) CTC 416
(2011) 7 MLJ 438
13
14
14
15
(2011) 8 MLJ 441
(2011) 7 MLJ 490
(2011) 7 MLJ 511
(2011) 7 MLJ 532
15
15
16
16
Ramasamy Naidu. V Vs S.P. Damodaran
Nakkheeran Publications, rep. by its Editor and Anr Vs Dhyanapeeta Charitable Trust,
rep. by its Trustee, Sri Nithya Sadhananda @ T.T. Dhanasekar
Rabiya Basheer Ali Vs C. Devendra Prasad
Eesha Kumar Vs The Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation,
West Zone, Coimbatore
Marappa Gounder and Ors Vs Chennimalai Gounder (Died) and Ors
The District Collector, having office at Katchery, Thanjavur District. & 2 Ors Vs
Saraswathi
Rajendra Gupta and Ors Vs The Corporation of Chennai, rep. by its Commissioner,
Ripon Buildings, Chennai -3 and Anr
Manivannan Vs Thenmozhi
Mayil Traders, Registered Firm, rep. by its Partner, Tmt. Vedhambal, 85/88 R.
Pudupalayam Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Salem District Vs Thiyagarajan
Raghunatha Reddy . C Vs S. Rajasekaran and Anr
2011-4- TLNJ 548
2011 (5) CTC 607
16
16
2011 (5) CTC 612
2011 (5) CTC 620
17
17
2011 (5) CTC 628
2011-4-L.W. 628
17
18
2011-4-L.W. 633
18
(2011) 7 MLJ 672
2011 (6) CTC 747
20
20
2011 (5) CTC 837
20
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
iv
HIGH COURT CITATION OF CRIMINAL CASES
SL.
NO.
CAUSE TITLE
CITATION
PAGE NO.
1
Mahalakshmi Vs State of Tamilnadu rep. by Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Maduranthagam and Ors
(2011) 4 MLJ (Crl) 582
22
2
Vijay and Ors Vs State represented by Inspector of Police, All Women Police
Station, Tambaram, Chennai and Anr
(2011) 4 MLJ (Crl) 609
22
3
Ramayee and Anr Vs Govindasamy
2011 (5) CTC 626
23
4
Murugan and Ors Vs Kasimani And Kasimani Vs Murugan and Ors
(2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 858
23
5
Kumar. B @ Jeyakumar @ Left Kumar @ Stephen Kumar Vs Inspector of
Police, C. B. C. I. D., Pudukkottai, Vaitheeswaran Koil Police Station
(2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 961
23
6
Lingam @ Lingadurai Vs Inspector of Police, Susendram Police Station,
Kanyakumari District and Anr
(2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 980
24
v
SUPREME COURT CITATIONS
CIVIL CASES
2011 (6) CTC 214
Mangluram Dewangan
Vs
Surendra Singh & Ors
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Section 104, Order 22, Rules 3 & 9 (2) Order 43, Rule 1(k) –
Abatement – Whether an order of Trial Court rejecting an Application filed under Order 22, Rule 3 by person
claiming to be legatee under Will of Plaintiff and consequently dismissing Suit in absence of any legal heir, is
appealable decree or not – Held, no Appeal is provided against order under Order 22, Rules 3 & 5, either under
Section 104 or Order 43, Rule 1 – When an order is passed under Order 22, Rules 3 & 5, dismissing an Application
by a person claiming to be Legal Representative on ground that he is not Legal Representative and consequently
dismissing Suit, is not appealable under Section 104 or Order 43, Rule 1 – An order dismissing an Application
under Order 22, Rule 3 after an enquiry under Rule 5 and consequently dismissing Suit is also not a decree –
Aggrieved person can challenge order by way of Revision before High Court and not by way of Appeal.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 22, Rule 3 – Abatement – Whether rejection of Application
under Order 22, Rule 3 after an enquiry under Rule 5, and consequential dismissal of Suit on ground that there is no
Legal Representative would amount to decree or not – Held, if Court orders that Suit has abated or dismissed, Suit
as having abated, as consequence of rejection of Application under Order 22, Rule 3, such order is not a decree –
When any order declares that Suit has abated or dismisses Suit not as consequence of Legal Representatives filing
any Application to come on record, but in view of finding that right to sue does not survive on death of sole
Plaintiff, and there is an adjudication determining rights of parties in regard to all or any of matters in controversy
in Suit, such order will be a decree – Law laid down in Niranjan Nath v. Afzal Hussain, AIR 1916 Lahore 245 and
Mithulal v. Badri Prasad, AIR 1981 M.P. 1 (FB) approved and followed.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 22 – Rules of Abatement – Nature and Scope – (a) When
sole Plaintiff dies and right to sue survives, on an Application made in that behalf, Court shall cause Legal
Representative of deceased Plaintiff to be brother on record and proceed with Suit – (b) If Court holds that right to
sue does not survive on death of Plaintiff, Suit will abate under Rule 1 of Order 22 – (c) Even where right to sue
survives, if no Application is made for making Legal Representative a party to Suit, within time limited by law
(within period of 90 days from date of death of Plaintiff), Suit abates, as per Rule 3(2) of Order 22 – (d) Abatement
occurs as a Legal Consequence of (i) Court holding that right to sue does not survive; or (ii) no Application being
made by any legal representative of deceased Plaintiff to come on record and continue Suit : Abatement is not
dependant upon any formal order of Court that Suit has abated – (e) Even though formal order declaring abatement
is not necessary when Suit abates, as proceedings in Suit are likely to linger and will not be closed without formal
order of Court, Court is usually to make an order recording that Suit has abated, or dismiss Suit by reason of
abatement under Order 22 – (f) Where a Suit abates or where Suit is dismissed, any person claiming o be Legal
abatement or dismissal of Suit under Order 22, Rule 9(2) : If sufficient cause is shown, Court will set aside
abatement or dismissal : If however such Application is dismissed, order dismissing such an Application is open to
challenge in an Appeal under Order 43, Rule 1(k) of the Code – (g) A person claiming to be Legal Representative
cannot make an Application under Rule 9(2) of Order 22 for setting aside abatement or dismissal, if he had already
applied under Order 22, Rule 3 for being brought on record within time and his Application had been dismissed
after an enquiry under Rule 5 of Order 22, on ground that he is not Legal Representative.
1
2011 CIJ 336 REJ
Janak Dulari Devi & Anr
Vs
Kapildeo Rai & Anr
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) – Sec.8, 54-Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) – Sec. -92 –
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) – O.VI R.2 – Property – Transfer – Sale – Sale deed – Registration receipt –
Pleadings – Evidence – Appellants had purchased a property by a registered sale deed but the registration receipt
with a promise to hand over it on receiving the balance of sale price – When the respondents failed to surrender the
registration receipt on receiving the balance of sale price, appellants filed a suit for specific performance which was
resisted by the respondents by contending that sale consideration was not at all paid and on failure, they had
cancelled the sale deed and sold the property to another – While the trial Court decreed the suit and directed the
respondents to had over the receipt, first appellate Court and the High Court held against the buyer by holding that
sale consideration was not at all paid and the title did not pass on against which the appellants preferred SLP-While
the appellants contended that only a part of the sale price was due to be paid and offered to pay the same, the
respondents contended that nothing was paid and on failure, they cancelled the sale and sold the property to
another-Held, in the State of Bihar practice of executing sale deed and payment of sale consideration in future was
prevailing and the seller would retain the registration receipt till the sale price was paid and on failure, he could
cancel the transaction – In this transaction, title would pass only on the payment of the full sale consideration and
not on the registration of the sale deed – Even in other States, if there was such an intention of the parties to
transfer title only on payment of full sale consideration on a future date, title would pass on only on such future
date and not on the date of registration of the sale deed – As the first appellate nonpayment of entire consideration
till the sale deed was cancelled and there was no proof to show that it was also offered before the cancellation,
appellants were not entitled for a decree of specific performance – SLP was dismissed and the decree of dismissal
of the suit was confirmed.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) – Sec. – 92 – Code of Civil procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) – O. VI R.2 –
Pleadings – Evidence – Effect – Evidence let in by the parties without necessary pleadings or contrary to the
pleadings would be ignored by the Court.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) – Sec. 8, 54 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) – Sec. – 5, 92
– Property – Transfer – Sale – Sale deed – Registration – Title – Transfer – Pleadings – Evidence – Parties executing
the sale deed may agree that title to the property covered by the sale deed would pass on, not on the execution of
that deed but on the execution of that deed but on a future date or on happening of an event – When the parties to
the sale deed had agreed that title to the property would pass on only at a later date or on the happening of an
event, they may let in evidence to that effect even if the same was contrary to the recital in the sale deed.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) – Sec.8, 54 – Property – Transfer – Sale – Sale deed –
Registration – Title – Transfer – When the parties to the sale deed had agreed that title to the property would pass
on only on the payment of sale consideration which was agreed to be paid at a future date, title to the property
would pass on only on the payment of the sale consideration so agreed and not on the execution of the sale deed.
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) – Sec.8, 54 – Property – Transfer – Sale – Sale deed –
Registration – Title – Transfer – Possession – Registration receipt – Normally, the recitals in a sale deed about the
transfer of title, receipt of consideration and delivery of possession will be evidence of such acts and events; and
on the execution and registration of the sale deed, the sale would be complete even if the sale price was not paid,
and it will not be possible to cancel the sale deed unilaterally – In the State of Bihar and in other parts of the
country where the practice of takhubzul badlain is prevalent, until and unless the duly executed and registered sale
deed comes to the possession of the purchaser or until the right to receive the original sale deed is secured by the
purchaser by obtaining the registration receipt, the deed of sale merely remains an agreement to be performed and
will not be a completed sale.
2
Ratios:
a. Evidence let in by the parties without necessary pleadings or contrary to the pleadings would be
ignored by the Court.
b. Parties executing the sale deed may agree that till to the property covered by the sale deed would pass
on, not on the execution of that deed but on a future date or on happening of an event.
c. When the parties to the sale deed had agreed that title to the property would pass on only at a later
date or on the happening of an event, they may let in evidence to that effect even if the same was
contrary to the recital in the sale deed.
d. When the parties to the sale deed had agreed that title to the property would pass on only on the
payment of sale consideration which was agreed to be paid at a future date, title to the property would
pass on only on the payment of the sale consideration so agreed and not on the execution of the sale
deed.
e. Normally, the recitals in a sale deed about the transfer of title, receipt of possession will be evidence of
such acts and events; and on the execution and registration of the sale deed, the sale would be
complete even if the sale price was not paid, and it will not be possible to cancel the sale deed
unilaterally.
f.
In the State of Bihar and in other parts of the country where the practice of takhubzul badlain is
prevalent, until and unless the duly executed and registered sale deed comes to the possession of the
purchaser or until the right to receive the original sale deed is secured by the purchaser by obtaining
the registration receipt, the deed of sale merely remains an agreement to be performed and will not be
a completed sale.
2011 CIJ 461 ALJ
Ramrameshwari Devi and Ors
Vs
Nirmala Devi and Ors
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) – O. XXA R.1 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) –
Sec. 340 – Administration of justice – Civil litigation – Delay – Perjury – Mesne profit – Determination – Cost –
Issues – Court – Duty – Appellants who were permitted by the respondents to be in a house failed to vacate it –
When the respondents filed a suit to evict the appellants, appellants adopted various dilatory tactics and filed so
many petitions, appeals etc before various Courts which resulted in the delay of more than 40 years in vacating the
appellant – Finally, when the suit was at the stage of pronouncing judgment, appellants filed a petition raising
objection regarding valuation and court fee which was dismissed and ultimately came to the Supreme Court – On
considering the dilatory tactics adopted by the appellants and the incentive to them because of such delay, the
Court appointed amicus curiae and heard the parties to decide the way for speedy disposal of the civil cases and
prevent perjury – Held, normally, the Courts should not grant exparte injunction or stay – When such order was
granted exparte, immediately on the appearance of the opposite party, the petition had to be disposed – Litigants
who obtained exparte an interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be
adequately punished – The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits –
Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the
tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants – Act the time of
admission of plaint, the Court had to frame a time schedule for filing written statement and other stages –
Guidelines to be followed by the trial Courts in civil proceedings were suggested – Appeal was dismissed with a
cost of 2,00,000/-.
3
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) – O. XXA R.1 – Administration of justice – Civil litigation –
Vexatious litigation – Mesne profit – Determination – Cost – Court – Duty – In order to curb uncalled for and
frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) – O. XXA R.1, O. XXXIX R.1 – Civil litigation – Injunction – Stay –
Exparte – Court – Duty – The Court should be cautious and extremely careful while granting ex-parte ad interim
injunctions – As a rule, the court should grant interim injunction or stay order only after hearing the defendants or
the respondents – In case the court has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting
injunction it must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have
to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits.
Administration of justice – Civil litigation – Delay – Perjury – Mesne profit – Determination – Cost – Issues –
Court – Duty – Guidelines framed.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) – O. XXA R.1 – Civil litigation – Cost – Determination – Cost –
Court – Duty – While imposing costs the pragmatic realities and be realistic what the defendants or the
respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before different courts.
Ratios:
a. In order to curb uncalled for and frivolous litigation, the courts have to ensure that there is no
incentive or motive for uncalled for litigation.
b. The court should be cautious and extremely careful while granting ex-parte and interim injunctions.
c. As a rule, the court should grant interim injunction or stay order only after hearing the defendants or
the respondents.
d. In case the court has to grant ex-parte injunction in exceptional cases then while granting injunction it
must record in the order that if the suit is eventually dismissed, the plaintiff or the petitioner will have
to pay full restitution, actual or realistic costs and mesne profits.
e. While imposing costs the Courts have to take into consideration pragmatic realities and be realistic
what the defendants or the respondents had to actually incur in contesting the litigation before
different courts.
(2011) 8 MLJ 551 (SC)
National Insurance Co. Ltd
Vs
Shyam Singh and Ors
Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) – Accident claim – Fatal accident – Compensation – Appeal – Determination
of multiplier – When unmarried young man dies, average age of parents to be taken for determining multiplier and
not age of deceased – Tribunal had rightly applied multiplier of 8 by taking the average age of parents of deceased
– Appeal allowed to said extent.
RATIO DECIDENDI: Where an unmarried young man dies, the average age of the parents of the deceased may be
taken for determining the multiplier.
4
2011-4-L.W. 610
Suba Singh & Anr
Vs
Davinder Kaur & Anr
Fatal Accidents Act (1855), Section 1A / Suit for damages for murder by wrongful act, Scope,
Criminal P.C., Section 357 / Compensation, Suit for damages whether barred,
Constitution of India, Article 20(2) / Rule against double jeopardy, Scope,
I.P.C., Sections, 302, 307, 302/ 34, 397/34,
Arms Act, Section 25/27.
Suit for damages was filed by respondents, widow and the minor daughter of one Ss, claiming a sum of
rupees three lakhs and damages from the defendants – appellants for causing the death of SS by their wrongful act,
by gun shot injuries.
An action for civil damages is not prosecution and a decree of damages is not a punishment – Rule of
double jeopardy, therefore, has no application to this case.
In Section 357 Criminal P.C., there is a clear and explicit recognition of a civil suit at the instance of the
dependants of a person killed, against his / her killers – In sub-section (1) (C) of section 357 there is clear indication
that apart from the punishment of fine, the person convicted of any offence of having caused the death of another
person or of having abetted the commission of such an offence may also be liable to fact a civil action for damages
under the Fatal Accident Act, 1855 in a suit for damages.
Sensitive matters like payment of compensation and damages for death resulting from a wrongful or
negligent act are governed by a law which is more than one and a half centuries old.
2011-4-L.W. 618
Mathai M. Paikeday
Vs
C.K. Antony
C.P.C., Order 33, Order 44, ‘Indigent person’, who is, ‘Sufficient means’; what is, Scope of, Pension and
Money received by the respondent from his son employed abroad whether is covered.
“Sufficient means” in Order 33 Rule 1 of CPC contemplates the ability or capacity of a person in the
ordinary course to raise money by available lawful means to pay court fee.
Object and purpose of Order 33 and Order 44 of CPC are to enable a person, who is ridden by poverty, or
not possessed of sufficient means to pay court fee, to seek justice.
Amount of money received by the respondent from his son employed abroad and by way of pension
amounts to a ‘sufficient means’ to pay court fee which disentitles him to be an indigent person under Order 33 Rule
1 and Order 44 Rule 1 of CPC.
Respondent cannot be declared as an indigent person in order to prosecute regular first appeals before the
High Court.
5
2011 (6) CTC 771
C. Venkatachalam
Vs
Ajitkumar C. Shah and Ors
And
Bar Council of India
Vs
Sanjay R. Kothari and Ors
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986) – Consumer Protection Rules, 1987 – Maharashtra Consumer
Protection Rules, 1987, Rules 2(b) & 4(7) – Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961), Section 33 – Consumer could be
represented by Agent duly appointed by him and such Agent need not be Advocate by profession – In medical
negligence case Doctor may be represented by Doctor – Such provision does not violate Advocates Act –
Consumer Commission may consider non-Advocate appearing without accreditation and party may appoint nonAdvocate as representative provided such representative is appearing on an individual case basis and has some
pre-existing relationship with complainant, etc. – Directions, guidelines issued.
(2011) 7 MLJ 843 (SC)
Himani Alloys Ltd.
Vs
Tata Steel Ltd.
Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 111908), Order 12 Rule 6 –Judgment on admissions – Suit for recovery of
money – Application for judgment on admission – Plea that defendant had admitted liability for specified amount –
Judgment passed by High Court on admission in favour of plaintiff / respondent-Appeal – Claim of plaintiff
regarding admission proved to be incorrect – High Court ought to have rejected application – High Court could not
give judgment on some other admission not pleaded by plaintiff --- Appeal allowed.
RATIO DECIDENDI: Unless the admission is clear, unambiguous and unconditional, the discretion of the Court
should not be exercised to deny the valuable right of a defendant to contest the claim and the discretion should be
used only when there is a clear admission which can be acted upon.
(2011) 7 MLJ 1432 (SC)
V. Sumatiben Maganlal Manani (dead) by L.Rs.
Vs
Uttamchand Kashiprasad Shah and Anr
Eviction – Issues of sub-letting and non-user of suit shop for purpose it was let out – Decree of eviction
passed by lower Courts – High Court in revision set aside decree of eviction and dismissed suit of plaintiff – Appeal
by landlady – On basis of materials available on record, appellate Court justified in arriving finding of subletting
against defendant No. 1 – Electricity bill showing no consumption of electricity for period of six months
immediately preceding filing of suit supported case of plaintiff – Impugned order of High Court interfering and
setting aside findings of facts properly arrived at by Courts below not justified – Order of High Court set aside –
Appeal allowed.
RATIO DECIDENDI: When the Courts below took into consideration the overall picture emerging from all the
material facts and circumstances relating to the case and passed a decree of eviction on the ground that the suit
premises had not been used by the tenant for the purpose for which it was let out and also on the ground of
subletting, the High Court, in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction, is not justified in interfering with the well
reasoned judgment of the appellate Court and setting aside the findings of facts properly arrived at by the Courts
below.
**************
6
SUPREME COURT CITATIONS
CRIMINAL CASES
2011 (6) CTC 228
Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin
Vs
State of Maharashtra & Anr
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 71, 71 78 & 79 – Constitution of India, Article 21 –
Freedom of Personal Liberty – Non-Bailable Warrant – Procedure to be followed – When Non-Bailable Warrant can
be issued – Magistrate issued Non-Bailable Warrant at preliminary stage of case when it came up for hearing –
Subsequently accused appeared before Court and Non-Bailable Warrant was cancelled – Police arrested accused
despite cancellation of Non-Bailable Warrant by Court – Accused has also informed Police about cancellation of
Non-Bailable Warrant directly involves curtailment of liberty of person – Warrant of arrest cannot be issued
mechanically, but only after recording satisfaction – Courts should be extra-cautious and careful while directing
issue of Non-bailable Warrant, otherwise wrongful detention would amount to infringement of Fundamental Right
envisaged under Article 21 of Constitution of India – Power to issue Non-Bailable Warrant has to be exercised
judiciously and not arbitrarily.
Constitution of India, Articles 226, 21 & 32 – Wrongful and illegal detention – Right to Compensation –
Powers of Court to award compensation – Illegal arrest – Courts can grant monetary compensation in exercise of
its jurisdiction respectively under Articles 32 & 226 of the Constitution of India to victim, whose Fundamental
Rights under Article 21 of the Constitution are violated.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 ( 2 of 1974), Sections 70, 71, 78 & 79 – Issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant
– Procedure to be followed – General directions issued by Supreme Court to prevent abuse and to protect personal
liberty – (a) All High Courts shall ensure that Subordinate Courts use printed and machine numbered Form No.2 for
issuing warrant of arrest and each such form is duly accounted for; (b) Before authenticating, Court must ensure
that complete particulars of case are mentioned on warrant; (c) Presiding Judge of Court (or responsible officer
specially authorized for purpose in case of High Courts) issuing warrant should put his full and legible signatures
on process, also ensuring that Court seal bearing complete particulars of Court is prominently endorsed thereon;
(d) Court must ensure that warrant is directed to a particular Police Officer (or Authority) and, unless intended to be
open-ended, it must be returnable whether executed or unexecuted, on or before date specified therein; (e) Every
Court must maintain a Register (in format given below), in which each warrant of arrest issued must be entered
chronologically and serial number of such entry reflected on top right hand of process; (f) No warrant of arrest shall
be issued without being entered in Register mentioned above and concerned Court shall periodically check/monitor
same to confirm that every such process is always returned to Court with due report and placed on record of
concerned case; (g) A register similar to one in clause (e) supra shall be maintained at concerned Police Station :
Station House Officer of concerned Police Station shall ensure that each warrant of arrest issued by Court, when
received is duly entered in said register and is formally entrusted to a responsible officer for execution; (h)
Ordinarily, Courts should not give a long time for return or execution of warrants, as experience has shown that
warrants are prone to misuse if they remain in control of executing agencies for long; (i) On date fixed for return of
warrant, Court must insist upon compliance report on action taken thereon by Station House Officer of concerned
Police Station or Officer In-charge of concerned agency; (j) Report on such warrants must be clear, cogent and
legible and duly forwarded by a superior Police Officer, so as to facilitate fixing of responsibility in case of misuse;
(k) In event of warrant for execution beyond jurisdiction of Court issuing it, procedure laid down in Sections 78 & 79
of Code must be strictly and scrupulously followed; and (I) In event of cancellation of arrest warrant by Court, order
cancelling warrant shall be recorded in case file and Register maintained : copy thereof shall be sent to concerned
authority, requiring process to be returned unexecuted forthwith : Date of receipt of unexecuted warrant will be
entered in aforesaid registers : A copy of such order shall also be supplied to accused – Format of Register
prescribed.
7
2011 CIJ 549 SC(1)
Inderjit Singh Grewal
Vs
State of Punjab & Anr
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) – Sec. 482 – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) – Sec. 13B
– Administration of Justice – Divorce - Consent divorce - Fraud - Effect- Decree – Cancellation – Party – Right –
Quashing – Court – Jurisdiction – Couples has obtained divorce by mutual consent and thereafter, wife filed a
complaint before the Magistrate alleging that the divorce was sham and obtained by them by fraud on the Court for
enabling the husband to marry an American women to enable him to get American citizenship and after such
divorce, she had been cohabiting with him and at that time, the husband had committed domestic violence – When
the Magistrate took cognizance of the complaint and issued summons, husband sought for quashing the complaint
as an abuse of the process of the Court which was resisted by the wife – When the High Court dismissed the
petition, husband filed SLP – Parties stood by their stands – Held, when a competent District Court had granted a
decree of divorce, the Magistrate which was lower in rank could not ignore the same and take cognizance of the
complaint – While fraud vitiated the order obtained from the Court, the party who was instrumental or abetted the
fraud could not get relief from the Court by alleging such fraud – As the District Judge had already granted divorce
and it remained in force, without setting aside the same by appropriate proceeding, party could not lodge a
complaint by ignoring it – Order of a competent Court could not be set aside as void in collateral proceeding –
Complaint was held as an abuse of the process of the Court and was set aside with liberty to the wife to challenge
the decree of divorce in appropriate proceeding – Appeal was allowed.
Administration of Justice – Fraud – Order – Office – Effect – Where a person gets an order / office by
making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the competent authority, such order cannot be sustained in the
eyes of the law.
Administration of Justice - Order – Void – Fraud – Effect – A void order passed by a Court or authority
could be ignored or set aside only by initiating appropriate proceeding before an appropriate Forum.
Administration of Justice – Fraud – Effect – Estoppel – A person who obtained an order by playing fraud on
the Court or authority is not entitled to challenge that order by alleging such fraud.
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955) – Sec. 13B, 23(2) – Divorce – Consent divorce – Conciliation – Court –
Duty – Even in the proceeding for divorce by mutual consent, there is an obligation on the part of the court to make
every endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties.
Ratios:
a. Where a person gets an order / office by making misrepresentation or playing fraud upon the
competent authority, such order cannot be sustained in the eyes on the law.
b. A void order passed by a Court or authority could be ignored or set aside only by initiating appropriate
proceeding before an appropriate Forum.
c. A person who obtained an order by playing fraud on the Court or authority is not entitled to challenge
that order by alleging such fraud.
d. Even in the proceeding for divorce by mutual consent, there is an obligation on the part of the court to
make every endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties.
e. In the proceeding for divorce by mutual consent, for granting divorce, the Court has to be satisfied
about the existence of mutual consent between the parties on some tangible materials which
demonstrably disclose such consent.
8
2011 CIJ 558 CTJ (1)
State of Rajasthan
Vs
Arjun Singh and Ors
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) – Sec. 3 – Criminal trial – Evidence – Witness – Relative – Motive –
Accused persons had stood in the roof and fired at the deceased and others and thereby caused them injuries
which resulted in the death of one and injuries to others – In their prosecution, few were convicted and others were
acquitted against which the State and the accused preferred appeal – High Court confirmed the judgment of the
trial Court but altered the sentence from Sec. 149 IPC to Sec. 34 IPC against which both parties preferred SLP –
While the State contended that the charge against all the accused that the motive for them was not relatives and so
their evidences should not be relied on – Held, when direct evidence was available and it was reliable, absence of
proof of motive would not vitiate the prosecution – Merely because the witnesses were related to the deceased,
their evidences were not to be brushed aside – Medical evidence corroborated the evidence of the eye witnesses –
Reasoning of the High Court both for conviction and acquittal was cogent and correct – Appeals were dismissed.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) – Sec. 3 – Criminal trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Eye witness –
Motive – Proof – Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act – In criminal trial, when direct
evidence is available and it is reliable, absence of proof of motive would not vitiate the prosecution.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) – Sec. 3 – Criminal trial – Evidence – Witness – Relative – Motive – In
criminal trial, the testimonies of the relatives who are eye – witnesses are not to be rejected merely because of their
relationship with the victim – In criminal trial, the evidence of the relatives of the victim have to be carefully
analysed and if the same are cogent and if there is no discrepancy, the same are acceptable.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) – Sec. 3 –Criminal trial – Appreciation of Evidence – Witness –
Neighbours – Nonexamination – Mere non-examinaiton of the neighbours as witnesses in criminal trial would not
vitiate the prosecution.
Ratios:
a. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act.
b. In criminal trial, when direct evidence is available and it is reliable, absence of proof of motive would
not vitiate the prosecution.
c. In criminal trial, the testimonies of the relatives who are eye – witnesses are not to be rejected merely
because of their relationship with the victim.
d. In criminal – trial, the evidences of the relatives of the victim have to be carefully analysed and if the
same are cogent and if there is no discrepancy, the same are acceptable.
e. Mere non-examination of the neighbours as witnesses in criminal trial would not victiate the
prosecution.
2011 CIJ 632 CTJ (1)
Mrinal Das & Ors
Vs
State of Tripura
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) – Sec.34, 149-Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) – Sec.3, 114, 133Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) – Sec.306, 307, 378 – Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence
Approver-Hostile witness – Corroboration-Appeal against acquittal-Appellate Court-Power-Appellants were
prosecuted for an offence of murder and the trial Court convicted few of them and the High Court convicted others
against which they preferred appeal-while the appellants contended that the evidence of the approver and of the
9
hostile witnesses should not be believed and there was no special circumstance to allow appeal against acquittal,
respondent resisted the same-Evidence of an approver and also of hostile witness had to be appreciation with
suspicion and if they were corroborated, they could be used-First appellate Court was empowered to appreciate the
evidence recorded by the trial Court and on its finding that the accused had to be convicted, the finding of acquittal
could be changed to that of conviction – As the High Court had properly appreciated the evidences available, it was
not interfered with and the appeal was dismissed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) – Sec.378 – Criminal trial-Appeal against acquittal-Appellate
Court-Power-Limitation-In an appeal against acquittal preferred before the first appellate Court, law does not
prescribe any limitation, restriction or condition to reappreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and the
appellate court is free to arrive at its own conclusion – There is no limitation on the part of the first appellate court
to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) – Sec.3, 114, 133 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) –
Sec. 306, 307 – Criminal trial-Appreciation of evidence-Approver-Corroboration – In criminal trial, conviction is not
illegal merely because it proceeds on the uncorroborated testimony of an approver – It is a rule of prudence to seek
corroboration for the testimony of an approver before acting upon it.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) – Sec.3 – Criminal trial-Appreciation of evidence – Hostile witnesses –
Corroboration – Merely because a witness deviates from his statement made in the FIR and declared as hostile, his
evidence cannot be held to be totally unreliable.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872) – Sec.3, 134 – Criminal trial – Appreciation of evidence-WitnessNumber-In criminal trial, where a large number of offenders are involved, it is necessary for the Court to seek
corroboration, at least, from two or more witnesses as a measure of caution.
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (45 of 1860) – Sec.34, 149 – Criminal trial – Common intention – Common object –
In order to convict a person vicariously liable under Section 34 or Section 149 IPC, it is not necessary to prove that
each and every one of them had indulged in overt acts – In order to apply Section 34 IPC, apart from the fact that
there should be two or more accused, two other facts must be established, namely a) common intention b)
participation of accused in the commission of an offence.
Ratios:
a. In an appeal against acquittal preferred before the first appellate Court, law does not prescribe any limitation,
restriction or condition to reappreciate, reconsider and review the evidence and the appellate court is free to
arrive at its own conclusion.
b. There is no limitation on the part of the first appellate court to review the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is found and to come to its own conclusion.
c. In criminal trial, conviction is not illegal merely because it proceeds on the uncorroborated testimony of an
approver.
d. It is a rule of prudence to seek corroboration for the testimony of an approver before acting upon it.
e. Merely because a witness deviates from his statement made in the FIR and declared as hostile, his evidence
cannot be held to be totally unreliable.
f.
In criminal trial, where a large number of offenders are involved, it is necessary for the Courts to seek
corroboration, at least, from two or more witnesses as a measure of caution.
g. In order to convict a person vicariously liable under Section 34 or Section 149 IPC, it is not necessary to
prove that each and every one of them had indulged in overt acts.
h. In order to apply Section 34 IPC, apart from the fact that there should be two or more accused, two other
facts must be established, namely a) common intention b) participation of accused in the commission of an
offence.
10
(2011) 4 MLJ (Crl) 746 (SC)
Bhagwan Dass
Vs
State (NCT) of Delhi
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Sections 3, 8, 27 – Honour
killing – Father killed his daughter annoyed with his daughter who left her husband and living in an incestuous
relationship with her uncle – He felt humiliated by this, murdered his own daughter – Murder took place inside
house of appellant and informed police by unknown person – Admittedly, deceased was living with appellant for
one month leaving her husband – Omission by appellant in not informing police about death of his daughter for
about 10 hours was a totally unnatural conduct on his part – Motive and opportunity for appellant to commit murder
exists – Doctor evidence that death due to Asphyxia and not suicide by hanging – Recovery of electric wire under
bed on disclosure statement – Circumstantial evidence clearly show accused had committed crime – Held nothing
honourable in honour killings, they are nothing but barbaric and brutal murders by bigoted, persons with feudal
minds – It comes within category of rarest of rare cases deserving death punishment – Conviction and sentence
confirmed.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 162(1) and (2) – Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872),
Section 24 – Use of statements in evidence – Statement of Accused to his mother is an extra-judicial confession –
Subsequent denial in Court is not believable because she obviously had after-thoughts and wanted to save her
son/accused from punishment – In fact, in her statement to police she had stated that the dead body was removed
from the bed and placed on floor – When she confronted with this statement in Court she denied that she had made
such statement before police – Her statement to police can be taken into consideration in view of proviso of
Section 162(1) Cr.P.C.
RATIONES DECIDENDI:
I.
The statement of the accused to his mother is an extra-judicial confession, if it is voluntary true
and made in fit state of mind.
II.
The dependable part of the evidence of hostile witness can be relied on.
III.
There is nothing ‘honourable’ in ‘honour killings’, and they are nothing but barbaric and brutal
murders by bigoted, persons with feudal minds, it comes within the category of rarest of rare
cases deserving death punishment.
(2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 841 (SC)
Ajitsingh Harnamsingh Gujral
Vs
State of Maharashtra
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder – Award of death sentence – Accused committed
murder of all four members of his family – Killing by pouring petrol and setting fire – Case relies on circumstantial
evidence – No eye witness – Failure of prosecution to prove motive satisfactorily in all cases of circumstantial
evidence may not fail a case – Wife of accused continuously ill-treated by him – Fact of his wife living with him for
25 years, do not prove a happy married life – Bad treatment of husbands put up by most Indian women and
continue living with them – Evidences of witnesses reliable – Fully establishes “last seen” theory – Accused last
seen with wife at midnight and quarrelling with her – Only short interval between this and fire – Chain of
circumstances connects accused to crime – Guilt of accused proved – Murder in a brutal, grotesque and dastardly
11
manner so as to arouse intense indignation of community – Falls within rarest of rare category – Conviction upheld
– Appeal dismissed.
Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 114 – Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Section 302 – Murder – Plea
of alibi in defence – Sudden disappearance of accused from sence of occurrence – Leaving house at odd time of
2.00a.m. – Version of accused that he received a message that his sister in Delhi critical – He rushed from Mumbai
to be with her – Claim of accused that he went by car to Ajmer Dargah to pray and then to Delhi, unacceptable –
Accused not having any cash crunch – Traveled with 7 lakhs in hand – Visiting a critical person from Mumbai to
Delhi in car after visiting Dargah instead of taking a flight, unacceptable version – No proof of urgent message as
claimed by him – Held, plea of alibi false and bogus.
RATIONES DECIDENDI:
I.
Conviction for commission of offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code can
be based on circumstantial evidence when the chain of circumstances connects accused to crime.
II.
Sentence of death penalty can be awarded in cases falling within “rarest of rare category “in which
murder was grotesque, diabolical, revolting or of a dastardly manner so as to arouse intense and
extreme indignation of community and when the collective conscience of the community is
petrified, or outraged.
(2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 936 (SC)
Lakhan Lal and Anr
Vs
State of Bihar
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act (56 of 2000), Sections 7 – A, 2 (k) and(1) – Claim of
Juvenility – Determination of age – Reckoning date for juvenility the date on which the offence committed – Not the
date when produced before Court or Authority.
Juvenile Justice (Care and protection of Children) Act (56 of 2000), Sections 7 – A, 2 (k) and (1) – Claim of
Juvenility – Maintainability – Fact of Juvenility ignored by trial Court as well as Appellate Court – Appellants
crossed 40 years of age – Yet claim continued in further appeal as if they were to be juvenile – Claim considered
even though the appellants convicted under Section 302 IPC and serving the sentence of three years therefore –
Conviction sustainable – Sentence awarded set aside and released forthwith – Dharambir v. State, (2010) 4 MLJ
(Crl) 716, followed.
RATIONES DECIDENDI
I.
Even when the juvenile ceases to be a juvenile i.e., crosses the age of 18 years, the inquiry must
be continued and orders made in respect of such person as if such person had continued to be a
juvenile.
II.
Even though issue as to whether the accused were juvenile did not come up for consideration for
whatever reason before the Courts below, the same could be considered at any stage of the
proceedings.
**************
12
HIGH COURT CITATIONS
CIVIL CASES
2011 (6) CTC 140
C. Magarajan
Vs
The District Collector, Vellore District, Vellore and Anr
Community Certificate – Issued by Tashildar on 19.5.1977 – Validity of – Community Certificates issued by
Tahsildar upto 11.11.1989 valid – Thereafter only Revenue Divisional Officer is competent – Ratio in R. Kanadasamy
v. The Chief Engineer, Madras Port Trust, 1997 (3) CTC 36 (SC) applied and followed.
2011-4 –TLNJ 337 (Civil)
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3825 of 2011 :- S. Srinivasan
Vs
G.D. Selvaraj
And
C.R.P. (NPD) No 3826 of 2011:- G.S. Dhandapani
Vs
G.D. Selvaraj
And
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3827 of 2011:- R. Govindaraj and Anr
Vs
G.D. Selvaraj
And
C.R.P. (NPD) No. 3828 of 2011:- R. Govindaraj
Vs
G.D. Selvaraj
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960, Section 14(1)(b) – Petition filed seeking eviction
on the ground of demolition and reconstruction and two other grounds – petitions allowed by the rent controller as
landlord has sufficient means to carry out demolition and reconstruction – on appeal the tenants filed petition to
summon records relating deposits of the Landlord – Petition as well as appeal were dismissed – on further revision
High Court expressed that when the landlord proved his means before the rent controller it is proper for the court
to order eviction – when the order is tested on appeal it is for the tenants to prove that the said order is improper
and liable to be reversed tenants cannot seek documents to set aside an order that was proved – CRP dismissed.
2011 CIJ 352 REJ
Navaneethakrishnan & Ors
Vs
S.A. Subramania Raja
Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) – Sec. 12(3) – Hindu law – Ancestral property – Sale – Necessity –
Specific performance – Respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement in respect of an
immovable property which was resisted by the appellants – Appellants contended that it was an ancestral property
in which many persons were having right and the sale was without any legal necessity and it was not binding upon
them which plea was resisted by the respondent – When the trial Court decreed the suit and the appeal was also
dismissed, the appellants preferred second appeal – Parties stood by their stands – Held, the version available in
the documents showed that the property was ancestral and the legal necessity was not proved – When a whole of
the property could not be sold but a substantial part could be sold, the Court could order the performance of the
substantial portion – As the persons who had signed the agreement had 1/3rd share in the property and that formed
13
a substantial portion of the property, specific performance was ordered in respect of 1/3rd share in the property –
Appeal was partly allowed.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) – Sec.12(3) – Hindu law – Ancestral property – Sale – Co-owner –
Legal necessity – Specific performance – Sale of an ancestral property by some of the co-owners without any legal
necessity would not bind the other co-owners.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963) – Sec. 13(3) – Specific performance – Co-Sharer – When a whole of the
property agreed to be sold could not be ordered to be specifically performed by the Court but a considerable
portion could be so ordered, the Court could direct the specific performance of the considerable portion of the
property.
Ratios:
a. Sale of an ancestral property by some of the co-owners without any legal necessity would not bind the other
co-owners.
b. When a whole of the property agreed to be sold could not be ordered to be specifically performed by the
Court but a considerable portion could be so ordered, the Court could direct the specific performance of the
considerable portion of the property.
2011-4 –TLNJ 358 (Civil)
U. Sree
Vs
U. Srinivas
Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Section 13(1)(i-a) – petition by the Husband seeking divorce and conjugal rights
by wife – the husband alleged wife caused mental cruelty including threatening harassment under IPC – wife denied
averments trial court granted relief of divorce – on appeals by the wife the High Court on the basis of the evidence
held that the wife as caused animus desrendi – further opined that no useful purpose will be served in keeping the
marriage intact and make the party suffered – a marriage that is dead, practically and emotionally if continue will
only prolong mental agony – dissolution decree confirmed – CMA dismissed.
2011 (5) CTC 416
Perumal
Vs
V. Balasubramanian
Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 145 & 146 - Cross–examination of witness – Practice of Advocates,
showing only signature portion, by blocking rest of document, deprecated – Even a well educated person might not
be in a position to identify his own signature, if it is shown to him in isolation – Advocated shall do well to see that
such practice is dropped – Defendant, who is a driver, might have been perplexed, when signatures alone were
shown and stated that those were not his signatures – Hence, Court should not jump to conclusion that Defendant
was in the habit of denying his signatures.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Section 34 – Interest – Award of – Suit for recovery of money on
basis of a promissory note – Awarding of pendente-lite interest, is purely within discretion of Court – It has to be
exercised judicially – Defendant is a poor driver and he borrowed money for purpose of his daughter’s marriage –
In such a case, charging of pendente-lite interest @ 12% per annum is exorbitant – Hence, interest rate reduced to
6% - Second Appeal allowed.
14
(2011) 7 MLJ 438
Astral Cables Ltd., Delhi - 6
Vs
National Small Industries Corporation Ltd (A Government of India Enterprise) rep.
By its Chairman cum Managing Director, 111-B/118, Sector-18, Shopping Complex,
Noida 201 301 and Chennai and Anr
Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11 – Rejection of plaint – While considering application,
strength or weakness of plaintiff’s case not to be seen – Plaint averments to effect that part of cause of action has
arisen in Chennai – Learned Single Judge not right in rejecting plaint on ground that no part of cause of action has
arisen in Chennai – Findings on said ground of cause of action set aside – How-ever, plaint liable to be rejected on
different ground under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC.
RATIO DECIDENDI: Where the allegations made in the plaint prima facie discloses a cause of action, plaint cannot be rejected and the question whether the plaint discloses any cause of action is to be decided by looking at the
plaint averment and not the defence set up in the written statement.
(2011) 8 MLJ 441
V. Thulasi
Vs
Indian Overseas Bank, Sowcarpet Branch, Chennai 600 079
Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908), Order 7 Rule 11(d) – Rejection of plaint – Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (54 of 2002), Section 34 – Plaintiffs seek for
declaration that alleged guarantee created in plaintiffs name for loan advanced to 1 st defendant is null and void –
Bank has proceeded under SARFAESI Act in respect of property offered as guarantee by plaintiff – Section 34 of
Act imposes specific bar to grant any relief of injunction in respect of any action taken by Bank under provisions of
SARFAESI Act – In view of specific bar under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act, action initiated by Bank under provisions of SARFAESI Act cannot be subject matter of suit in Civil Court – Suit barred under Section 34 of SARFAESI
Act – Application for rejection of plaint rightly allowed by learned single judge – Appeal dismissed.
RATIONES DECIDENDI: In view of specific bar under Section 34 of the SARFAESI Act, the action initiated by the
Bank under provisions of SARFASI Act cannot be subject matter of suit in Civil Court and the suit filed for the declaration that alleged guarantee created in the plaintiffs name for the loan advanced to 1st defendant is null and void
and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from proceeding against the plaintiff or the plaint schedule
property is barred under Section 34 of SARFAESI Act.
(2011) 7 MLJ 490
Velu Naicker
Vs
Elumalai Naicker
Expert Opinion – Only after application of mind on expert’s report and oral deposition given by expert,
evidence becomes evidence in strict sense.
RATIO DECIDENDI: Only after application of mind on the expert’s report and the oral deposition given by the expert, the so called evidence given by the expert actually becomes evidence in strict sensu and the opinion of the
expert as found in the report cannot be verbation taken by the Court.
15
(2011) 7 MLJ 511
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Chennai - 1
Vs
Sasikala Devi (deceased) and Ors
Motor Vehicles Act (59 of 1988) – Accident claim – Fatal accident – Claim petition filed by mother of deceased – Pending claim, mother died – Brother of deceased impleaded as her legal representative – Award of compensation by Tribunal – Tribunal has not considered whether first respondent / brother of deceased entitled to
claim compensation – Unless dependency proved, claimant not entitled to claim compensation – First respondent
not entitled to claim compensation for death of deceased brother.
RATIO DECIDENDI:
ceased.
Unless dependency proved, Claimant is not entitled to claim compensation for death of de-
(2011) 7 MLJ 532
A.N. Arunachalam
Vs
T. Sivaprakasam and Anr
Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 92 – No one is permitted to let in evidence contra to a registered
document – Duty cast upon defendants to show that document in question is not sale agreement – Burden is upon
defendants to prove the same.
RATIO DECIDENDI: In a suit for specific performance, once the execution of sale agreement is admitted, the onus
of proving that the sale agreement was executed only with regard to some money transaction and that there was no
intention of selling the suit property, is upon the defendant who made the contention.
2011-4- TLNJ 548
V.Ramasamy Naidu
Vs
S.P. Damodaran
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, Section 118 – Suit for recovery of money – decree and reversed by the
appellate court – on further appeal High Court expressed that when plaintiff has not come with clean hands to
court, the presumption under section 118 of NI act has to be rebutted – SA dismissed.
2011 (5) CTC 607
Nakkheeran Publications, rep. by its Editor and anr.
Vs
Dhyanapeeta Charitable Trust, rep. by its Trustee, Sri Nithya Sadhananda @ T.T. Dhanasekar
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 11, Rules 15 & 18 – Inspection of documents referred to in
Pleadings or Affidavit – Procedure to make order for Inspection – Defendant filed an Application for seeking
direction to Plaintiff to permit Defendant to inspect document mentioned in Affidavit – Defendant filed Application
for inspection after completion of chief-examination and before cross-examination of PW1 – Contention of Plaintiff
that he will produce and mark all documents at time of trial through witness – Defendant’s Application for
inspection of documents avoiding cross-examination of PW1 is premature – Civil Revision Petition dismissed.
16
2011 (5) CTC 612
Rabiya Basheer Ali
Vs
C. Devendra Prasad
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (T.N. Act 18 of 1960) – Practice and Procedure – In
Fair Rent proceedings particulars of property are to be ascertained – Rent Controller permitting Landlord to inspect
property with help of a qualified Civil Engineer after giving prior notice to Tenant – Permissibility.
This Revision Petition is filed against the order of the Appellate Authority, in granting permission to the
Landlord/Respondent to inspect the property with the help of the qualified Civil Engineer, after giving prior notice. Whether
the property Landlord/Respondent is entitled to file the Petition for fixing the fair rent or not can be decided by the Lower
Court, when appropriate Application is filed to that effect. As on date, the Landlord/Respondent has filed the application for
fixation of fair rent and to fix the fair rent, particulars of the property has to be ascertained. For that, purpose, the inspection
of the property by a qualified Civil Engineer is necessary.
2011 (5) CTC 620
Eesha Kumar
Vs
The Assistant Commissioner, Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation, West Zone, Coimbatore
Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 (18 of 1969), Section 15 – Correction or cancellation of entry in
Register of Births and Deaths – Petitioner made representation to Registrar to incorporate changed names of
Petitioner and his parents in his Birth Certificate – Petitioner’s and his parents’ names were changed and same
were published in Gazette Notification – Registrar changed name of Petitioner alone in Birth Certificate and left
names of Petitioner’s father and mother unchanged – Orders passed by Registrar refusing to change names of
Petitioner’s parents cannot be faulted – Correction and cancellation of entry can be made in margin of Register in
cases where recording is either erroneous in form or substance or has been fraudulently or improperly made –
Changes in names are not covered under Section 15 and same cannot be incorporated in Birth Certificate.
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), Sections 37 & 56 – Public Documents – Gazette Notification –
Evidentiary value – Changed names of person published in Gazette Notification is admissible in evidence – Gazette
Notification is public document and same can be taken judicial notice at any time by Court concerned.
2011 (5) CTC 628
Marappa Gounder and Ors
Vs
Chennimalai Gounder (Died) and Ors
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 – Doctrine of Lis Pendens – ‘C’ Plaintiff purchased 1/3
share in suit property from ‘N’ & ‘K’ pending Suit for Specific Performance filed by ‘M’ Defendant in respect of suit
property – Suit filed by ‘M’ was dismissed – Pending First Appeal, ‘N’ & ‘K’ again sold their 1/3 share in favour of ‘M’
– ‘N’ & ‘K’ filed Compromise Memo alongwith ‘M’ and Appeal was dismissed as against ‘N’ & ‘K’ – ‘C’ Plaintiff was
not party to Compromise Memo and opposed Compromise Memo entered between his vendors and ‘M’ as collusive
– ‘C’ plaintiff filed Suit for Partition claiming 1/3 share of Plaintiff against Defendant – Whether compromise decree
passed between parties without consent of transferee pendenete lite will bind on transferee pendent elite, when
transferee pendenete lite is also party to Suit – Whether purchase by ‘C’ Plaintiff pending Suit for Specific
Performance would hit by Doctrine of lis pendens or not – Held, if transferee pendent elite is not party to Suit, if any
alienation is made pending Suit will be subject to outcome of Suit and decree passed in Suit would bind him – Even
if any compromise is reached between parties to Suit, decree passed on such compromise shall be binding on
transferee, eventhough he is not party to Suit – Where transferee pendent elite is subsequently arrayed as party to
Suit and if any compromise is reached between parties, without consent of transferee pendent elite, such
compromise decree shall not be binding on transferee pendent elite – Law laid down in Veeraraghava Reddi v.
Subbba Reddi, 1915 ILR (43) Mad. 37 (FB) followed and applied.
17
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), Section 52 – Doctrine of Lis Pendens – Nature and Scope –
Essential Elements – Invocation thereof – Prerequisites – (i) Transfer made by party to Suit during pendency of Suit
is not void altogether, but validity is subject to outcome of Suit – (ii) If alienee pendente lite is not a party to Suit or
Appeal, any decree passed in Suit including decree passed on a compromise between parties to Suit or Appeal
shall be binding on alience pendent elite, provided there was no fraud or collusion – (iii) If alience pendent elite is
subsequently added as party to Suit, then he has got right to contest Suit like that of any other party – Even if
alienors who are parties to Suit remain ex parte, alienee, as a party to Suit, has got every right to let in evidence and
to establish his title or any other right which he claims through alienor – (iv) when despite contest made by alienee,
irrespective of fact whether alienor contested Suit or not, if decree is passed against alienee pendente lite then
undoubtedly in view of Seciton 52, transferee pendente lite shall be bound by said decree – (v) In event a decree is
passed on a compromise reached between alienor pendent elite and other contesting parties and if alienee
pendente lite is not a party to compromise, it shall be deemed that such compromise reached between alienor
pendente lite and other parties is as a result of collusion between them – (vi) if there is any collusion between
alienor pendente lite and other parties barring alienee, then, undoubtedly Doctrine of lis pendens shall not operate
against the transferee pendent elite – (vii) If alienee pendente lite is also party to compromise upon which a decree
is passed in terms of compromise, alienee pendente lite will also be bound by decree.
2011-4-L.W. 628
The District Collector, having office at Katchery, Thanjavur District. & 2 Ors
Vs
Saraswathi
Tort / Negligence of Doctor, Vicarious liability, Family planning operation, Failure of, Compensation, Scope.
Contention on behalf of the appellants (State owned hospital) that the operation was done three years
before the respondent gave birth to twins and that there is an element of failure in all operations and there is no
specific fault on the doctors, not accepted.
Respondent was made to conceive due to the failure caused by the doctors of the second appellant, - By
applying the doctrine of vicarious liability, the Courts below have rightly held that the appellants are liable to pay
the compensation amount – Un-wantonly the respondent has given birth to two children due to the mistake
committed by the doctors of the second appellant.
Failure of the operation itself would amount to negligence and it is not incumbent on the respondent /
plaintiff to specifically prove the negligence.
2011-4-L.W. 633
Rajendra Gupta and Ors
Vs
The Corporation of Chennai, rep. by its Commissioner, Ripon Buildings, Chennai -3 and Anr
C.P.C., Sections 92, 93 / Requisites to invoke Section 92, Locus Standi, Victoria Public Hall, Trust Property,
Renewal of lease, ‘Interested Person’; who is, Cy pres Doctrine, Scope,
Transfer of Property Act (1882), Sections 108(J), 115, Lease / Sub – lease, Rights of sub-lessee, Scope of,
Fresh lease, Renewal of lease / Doctrine of ‘Cy pres’, Scope,
Trusts Act (1882), Section 77, Extinguishment of Trust, Victoria Public Hall Trust, Extinguishment of Trust
by Resolution, Scope and objects of Trust,
C.P.C., Order 39 / Injunction – Prima facie case means that there is a serious question to be tried and that
the claim of the Plaintiffs is not frivolous or vexatious.
18
Held:
Lease deed executed between the Trustees and Corporation will clearly establish that the Corporation
continues to be the owner of the property and that the Trust is only a lessee bound by the terms of the lease
agreement.
Deed of Trust enables the Trustees “to sublet” – Initial period of sublease itself was beyond the original
lease i.e. 30.04.1985.
Trust can grant lease for a period not exceeding 21 years only after obtaining permission of the Court –
Even though, the leased property is not the Trust property, as per the terms of Scheme decree, Trustees being
governed by the provisions of Trust Act are to administer the property only as per the terms of the scheme decree
subject to the provisions of Indian Trust Act.
Deed of sublease is not in good faith and antithesis to the object of the Trust.
In the case on hand, the property was not dedicated to the Trust; but only leased out to the Trust for
construction of Victoria Public Hall.
Burden of proving perpetuity of lease is on the lessee.
Long tenancy by itself is not sufficient to hold that lease is in perpetuity – There is no force in the
submission that lease is in perpetuity.
Three requisite conditions to invoke jurisdiction under Section 92, (i) there is a trust created for public
purposes of a charitable or religious nature;
(ii) there is a breach alleged of such trust, or the direction of the court is deemed necessary for the
administration of such trust; and the relief claimed is one or other of the reliefs mentioned in the section – It must
be instituted either by the Advocate – General or by two or more persons interested in the Trust with the consent of
the Advocate – General now with the leave of the Court.
Suit under Section 92 C.P.C. is a suit of a special nature for the protection of public rights in the public
Trusts and Charities – A suit under Section 92 C.P.C. is thus a representative suit and as such binds not only the
parties named in the suit – title but all those who are interested in the Trust.
Court must satisfy that the Trust is a “Public Trust” and the persons who filed the applications are
“interested in the Trust” – Appellants cannot be said to be the “persons interested” in the Trust.
When the Appellants are not “persons interested” in the Trust, Appellants cannot maintain the applications
in the scheme suit seeking for reconstitution of the Board of Trustees.
Unless new lease deed is executed at the cost of lease, there is no question of automatic renewal of lease
by mere exercise of option by the lessee.
Upon fulfillment of the object of the Trust or impossibility of continuation of the Trust, the Trustees may
make a declaration to the effect whereupon the Trust will stand extinguished.
Appellants have no locus standi to challenge the resolution nor are they persons interested in the affairs of
the Trust – Appellants cannot attack the resolution passed for their personal interest.
Applying doctrine of Cy press, the Government has now extended its arm to revive the original glory by
spending the huge amount and by forming another Trust.
Section 93 (3) of C.P.C. only empowers the use of the property of the trust for religious object in “Cy press”
– Doctrine of Cy press would only apply where a charitable bequest fails or incapable of being fulfilled in
19
accordance with the spirit or when directions of the Founder cannot be carried out for the purpose and the spirit for
which the Trust was created.
Prima facie case means that there is a serious question to be tried and that the claim of the Plaintiffs is not
frivolous or vexatious.
1st Defendant – Corporation is the trust owner of the property and that no injunction could be granted
infavour of the Appellants as against the trust owner – Appeals dismissed.
(2011) 7 MLJ 672
Manivannan
Vs
Thenmozhi
Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act (78 of 1956), Section 18(3) – Suit for maintenance – Wife guilty of
disertion and cruelty – Maintenance awarded by lower Courts – Award of maintenance by Courts below cannot be
found fault with – Second appeal dismissed.
RATIO DECIDENDI: A wife, who is guilty of desertion or cruelty should not be made to suffer for want of maintenance, if she is not having enough wherewithal to meet her creature comforts.
2011 (6) CTC 747
Mayil Traders, Registered Firm, rep. by its Partner, Tmt. Vedhambal,
85/88 R. Pudupalayam Village, Rasipuram Taluk, Salem District
Vs
Thiyagarajan
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), Order 41, Rule 27 – Production of document at Appellate stage –
Certificate of Renewal of Registration of Trade Mark, whether essential piece of evidence? – Suit for injunction
restraining Defedant from using Trade Mark allegedly deceptively similar to Plaintiff’s Trade Mark and damages for
same – Certificate of Renewal of Registration of Trade Mark sought to be produced as additional piece of evidence
– Held, certificate issued by Deputy Registrar of Trade Mark, an important piece of documentary evidence to
establish case of Plaintiff – Moreover, document being of recent origin took genesis for first time to be introduced
in Suit - Fair admission on behalf of Plaintiff that based on findings of Trial Court, Application made to Deputy
Registrar for issuance of certified copy of Certificate of Renewal – Held, certificate not to introduce a new set of
facts in this case – Certificate to establish date of registration of Plaintiff’s Trade Mark and its validity – Held,
Appellate Court is a Court of Appeal in facts also – Appellate Court has power of jurisdiction to reappraise evidence
and come to its own conclusion on basis of materials – However, in order to exercise power under Order 41, Rule
27 good reason to be shown as to why evidence not produced in Trial Court – In instant case, satisfactory account
given by Plaintiff to establish necessity of producing document at Appellate stage – Thus, condition enumerated
under Order 41, Rule 27 complied with – Petition to produce document allowed – Certificate issued by Deputy
Registrar of Trade Mark received and marked as Exhibit on side of Plaintiff.
2011 (5) CTC 837
C. Raghunatha Reddy
Vs
S. Rajasekaran and Anr
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (T.N. Act 18 of 1960), Sections 4 & 10(2)(i) – Wilful
default – Non-payment of difference between fair rent and contractual rent – Mere pendency of Revision Preferred
by Landlord would not enable Tenant to contend that fair rent had not reached finality.
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (T.N. Act 18 of 1960) – Practice and Procedure –
Restoration of Suit or proceeding dismissed for default would amount to all ancillary orders or proceedings also
20
being restored unless there is something on record to show contrary – When main RCOP is restored to file, Section
11 (4) Petition also stands restored.
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (T.N. Act 18 of 1960), Section 11(4) – Proceedings
before the Appellate Authority – Stay granted by Appellate Authority and also made absolute would not bar the
Appellate Authority from entertaining an Application under Section 11(4).
Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1960 (T.N. Act 18 of 1960) – Execution – Practice and
Procedure – An order passed as a consequence to failure of Tenant to comply with conditional order under Section
11(3) is a contested order and not an ex-parte order – Executing Court entitled to proceed without ordering notice
as contemplated under Order 21, Rule 22(1), CPC as amended by Madras High Court Amendment.
Law of Execution – Delivery of movables inside tenanted premises by bailiff to Landlord and kept under
lock and key in a room after execution of a bond by Landlord – Would not render non-delivery of vacant possession
– Held, delivery of possession, proper.
**************
21
HIGH COURT CITATIONS
CRIMINAL CASES
(2011) 4 MLJ (Crl) 582
Mahalakshmi
Vs
State of Tamilnadu rep. by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Maduranthagam and Ors
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 498-A – Dowry Prohibition Act (28 of 1961), Section 4 – Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 397, 401 – Revision against acquittal – Scope of – Death of wife in
matrimonial home within 5 months of marriage – Onus to explain cause of death of deceased upon husband/1st Accused – Defence explanation of death by suicide due to drowning in well, falsified by medical evidence – PostMortem certificate reveals deceased died of asphyxia – Doctor evidence specific to effect that ante-mortem injuries
so caused death and then only would have been thrown into well – Doctor opined, because of that lungs not
bloated and no water particles or water body found in stomach – Trial Court without assigning any reason disbelieved Medical Expert’s opinion and cause of death, gave its own view and acquitted accused persons – Trial Court
committed an error in not accepting Medical Experts Opinion – Fit case to remit matter back for retrial – Order of
acquittal set aside and ordered retrial – Revision allowed.
Indian Evidence Act (1 of 1872), Section 45 – Medical Expert’s evidence – Doctor who examined deceased
and conducted post-mortem only competent witness to speak about nature of injuries and cause of death – Unless
something inherently defective Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of doctor.
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 397, 401 – Revision against acquittal – Order of retrial – Justification of – Trial Court committed error while discarding doctor’s evidence and cause of death – Trial
Court committed irregularity in appreciating evidence – Material evidence overlooked – To prevent gross miscarriage of justice – Judgment of acquittal set aside – Retrial ordered.
RATIONES DECIDENDI:
I.
The doctor, who has examined the deceased and conducted the post-mortem is the only competent witness to speak about the only competent witness to speak about the nature of injuries and the cause of
death. Unless there is something inherently defective the Court cannot substitute its opinion for that of
the doctor.
II.
To prevent the gross miscarriage of justice, the High Court is empowered to set aside the judgment of
acquittal and to order for retrial.
III.
Crimes against women are not ordinary crimes committed in a fit of anger or for property. They are social crimes. They disrupt the entire social fabric. Hence they call for harsh punishment.
(2011) 4 MLJ (Crl) 609
Vijay and Ors
Vs
State represented by Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Tambaram, Chennai and Anr
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Sections 314, 482 – Oral arguments and memorandum of arguments – Oral arguments mandatory and it is duty of Court to hear oral arguments – But learned Magistrate did
not follow said procedure and has not heard oral arguments of accused – Though learned Magistrate had pronounced judgment convicting first accused, not sentence being imposed – Procedure adopted by learned Magistrate is against law and procedure contemplated under Code – Gross injustice caused to first accused violating Art22
icle 21 of Constitution of India (1950) – As such, application under Section 482 of Code maintainable – Impugned
judgment set aside – Case transferred to some other Court.
RATIO DECIDENDI: In view of Section 314 of Cr.P.C., the oral arguments are mandatory and the written arguments
could be filed in support of the oral arguments before concluding it and it is the duty of the Court ot hear the oral
arguments of the accused.
2011 (5) CTC 626
Ramayee and another
Vs
Govindasamy
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 125 – Maintenance should be ordered to be payable
from date of petition and not from date of order except for special reasons stated in order it restricted to from date
of order.
(2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 858
Murugan and Ors
Vs
Kasimani
And
Kasimani
Vs
Murugan and Ors
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), Section 200 – Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Act ( 43 of 2005), Section 12 – Maintenance – Claim for enhancement of maintenance amount – Complainant
unmarried and staying with accused / brother and family – Complainant working as daily wage coolie and entire
amount of her earning given to accused – III – treatment towards complainant at hands of accused – Domestic
Incident Report from Protection Officer nominated by Court not considered by trial Court – Non – consideration of
Report of Protection Officer vitiates order passed by trial Court – Orders passed by lower Courts set aside – Matter
remitted back to trial Court for consideration of Domestic Report so as to act in accordance with provisions of Act.
RATIO DECIDENDI: Judicial Magistrate who deals with application filed by aggrieved persons under Section 12(1)
of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, shall necessarily follow and act in accordance with
provisions of the Act and consider the Domestic Incident Report from the protection Officer or the service provider
and any order passed by the Court in default is vitiated.
(2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 961
B. Kumar @ Jeyakumar @ Left Kumar @ Stephen Kumar
Vs
Inspector of Police, C. B. C. I. D., Pudukkottai, Vaitheeswaran Koil Police Station
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Sections 302, 307, 394 read with 397, 376 – Offences of murder and rape –
Conviction and sentence – Death sentence – Appeal – Extreme depravity with which offences of murder and rape
committed on school going children and merciless manner in which death inflicted on victim would bring case
under category of rarest or rare cases – None of mitigating factors present in case – Act of accused shocked
collective conscience of society – Death sentence awarded by trial Court confirmed – Appeal dismissed.
RATIO DECIDENDI: When the offences of murder and rape were committed by the accused on the school going
children with extreme depravity and the death was inflicted on the victim in merciless manner and when the act of
the accused had shocked the collective conscience of the society, the case would fall under the category of rarest
of rare cases and the punishment of sentence of death awarded by the trial Court is proper and has to be
confirmed.
23
(2011) 3 MLJ (Crl) 980
Lingam @ Lingadurai
Vs
Inspector of Police, Susendram Police Station, Kanyakumari District and Anr
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), Section 364 – Probation of Offenders Act (20 of 1958); Sections 4 and 6 –
Release of offenders on probation of good conduct – Conviction and sentence of accused under 364 IPC – Five
years rigorous imprisonment imposed on accused – A Person found guilty by Court of an offence punishable with
death or imprisonment for life not entitled to obtain benefits under Probation of Offenders Act – Section 364 IPC
enables Court to give a sentence of life imprisonment upon accused – Accused not entitled to benefits of
provisions of Act.
RATIO DECIDENDI: An accused is not entitled to extension of benefit of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, if he is
found guilty of having committed an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life.
**************
24