Category: Allied Laws

Archive for the ‘Allied Laws’ Category


Ravinder Kaur Grewal & Ors v. Manjit Kaur & Ors (SC) www.itatonline.org

Indian Registration Act, 1908

S.17 : Documents which registration is compulsory – Family arrangement -A memorandum of settlement does not require registration- Order of High Court is set aside .

Rei Agro Ltd & Ors. AIR 2015 Calcutta 54 (HC)

Notaries Act,1952 , S. 14

S.14:Reciprocal arrangements for recognition of notaries Acts done by foreign notaries – Presumption as to power of attorney- Document executed and authenticated before Notary Public of Singapore – Document cannot be judicially recognized. Winding up petition based on the power of Attorney executed before the Notary of Singapore is held to be not valid as per Indian law. [ Indian Evidence Act 1872, S.85 ]

Jet Airways (India) Ltd v. Sahara Airlines Ltd & Ors.(2011) Vol 113 (3) Bom. L.R. 1725

Indian Contract Act , 1872
S. 59 : Application of payment where debt to be discharged is indicated – Apportionment between interest and principal- Firstly in payment of interest and cost therfater payment of principal amount , unless a specific direction contained in the decree or contract . [ S 60 , 61 ]

State of UP and Ors.v. Saroj Kumar Sinha AIR 2010 SC 3131

Constitution of India, 1949
Art. 311 (2) :Dismissal or removal -Disciplinary enquiry – Documents furnishing foundation of charge sheet must be supplied- Principle of natural justice is violated – Dismissal was held to be not vald .

Rama Nand v. Mulakh Raj & Anr. AIR 2010 (NOC) 921 (P & H)

Transfer of property Act ,1882

S.106: Duration ofn certain lease – Servicing of Notice –Notce sent by registered poat recived back wth report not present -No presumption can be drawn unless something more is proved by cogenet evidence that it was refised. [ Code of Civil procedure ,1908 , Order v , General Clauses Act , 1897 , S 27, Indian Evidence Act ,1872 S.114(f) ]

UOI v. Shiv Raj; AIR 2014 SC 2242

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

S.5A:Hearing of objections- Natural justice – Objective Application of mind to the objections raised – Officer hearing objection should himself decide objections and give report- Successor decides the case without giving a fresh hearing, the order would stand vitiated having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. [ S.5C ]

K. Subbarayudu and Ors. v. The Special Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition) (2017) 12 Supreme Court Cases 840

Limitation Act ,1963

S.5: Extension of prescribed period in certain cases – Sufficient cause – Condonation of Delay – Delay of 3671 days – No reason to decline benefit merely due to delay in filing of appeal when in similar cases benefit was derived by similar concerns [ Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ,S. 18, 54]

In Re Cognizance for extension of limitation v .Ors ( 2020) 9 SCC 468; MANU/SC/ 0654/ 2020 (SC) www.itatonline.org

Constitution of India , 1949 . Art.141 :Covid -19 – Extension of limitation period due to Covid-19 Lock down- Service of all notices, summons and exchange of pleadings may be effected by e-mail, FAX, WhatsApp, Telegram, Signal etc in addition to service of the same document by e-mail simultaneously on the same date- The Reserve Bank of India may consider whether the validity period of a cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act should be extended or not [ Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 S.23(4),29A, Banking Regulation Act,1949, S.35A, Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ,S.12A Constitution of India, 1949 , Art 141 , Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881,S.46 Limitation Act 1908 , S.5 ]

S. D. Joshi & Ors v. High Court of Judicature at Bombay & Ors. AIR 2011 SC 848

Constitution of India , 1949
Art. 217(2) : Judicial office- Elevation to High Court – Family Court has all trappings of Court – Therefore is a court – However Judges of Family Court do not hold, Judicial Office- Not eligible to be considered for elevation as High Court Judges . [ Art , 233(2) 236 , Family Courts Act , 1984 , S 3 ]

S.N.D.P Sakhayagam v .Kerala Atmavidya Sangam and ors ( 2017) 8 SCC 835

S.260A :Appeal -High Court – Substantial question of law- High Court in second appeal cannot reverse the concurrent finding of Courts below ,without framing a substantial question of law . [ Civil procedure code 1908 , S.100 ]