HTML

Wednesday, 20 September 2017

who is the authority to decide on parking places under Section 344 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, framed under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. seek identification of a suitable parking place

. VINOD CHANDRAN, J. ===================== W.P.(C) No.31063 of 2014 - G ====================== Dated this the 10th day of February, 2015 J U D G M E N T

The petitioners have purchased Tata Iris Autorickshaws (Auto Taxi) and obtained contract carriage permits, as evidenced from Exts.P2 to P27. The grievance is that, despite the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority having specified parking place at Sultan Bathery, the petitioners are directed to park at a distant place called Manikunnu, wherein, except the Court Complex, there is absolutely no activity. The petitioners seek identification of a suitable parking place within the Sultan Bathery town itself. Though "Sultan Bathery" has been specified as the parking place, the petitioners are prevented from parking any where inside the town for reason of the objection of the 5th respondent.

2. The learned Government Pleader who appears  for respondents 1, 2 and 4 submits on instructions from the 4th respondent that, it is the Panchayath, who has arrived at a decision to permit the petitioners to park at Manikunnu. However, no order is said to have been communicated to the 4th respondent also.

3. In such circumstance, the writ petition itself was taken up and the petitioners' Counsel and learned Government Pleader were heard.

4. The issue with respect to parking of Auto taxies crop up intermittently all over the State; which is objected to by the Autorickshaw drivers. The Auto taxies are considerably of higher purchase value but have the same fares as Autorickshaws. Many of the persons, who purchase it, maintain it for eking out their livelihood by plying the same as a contract carriage. The Autorickshaws too are plied for the very same purpose and the Autorickshaws cannot be removed from the road on introduction of a newer model of Auto taxies nor can the  Auto taxies be interdicted from plying in the area where the Autorickshaws are plied. Both should adopt an attitude of "live and let live"; and endeavour to eke out a livelihood in the available circumstances and not by restricting operations of one or the other.

5. One other aspect which assumes significance is that when such restrictions are attempted, the authorities do not look at the convenience of the general public and are led by extraneous considerations. Auto taxies definitely is an improvisation on the Autorickshaws and is a more convenient mode of public transport. However, that is not to say that either of these should be elected to be restricted or allowed to be plied in exclusion of the other.

6. Again when such disputes arise, they come to this Court only since, the authorities under the various enactments as also the Local Self Government Institutions take a recalcitrant attitude and refuse to even attempt a conciliated settlement between the two parties. Herein,  despite notice being issued to the 3rd respondent, the Local Self Government Institution, none appear before this Court, for reasons best known to the 3rd respondent. The 5th respondent an Autorickshaw Co-ordination Committee, probably has not appeared, since, they are against the prayers sought for and can by their muscle power alone resist the claim of the petitioners. However, such a situation is not contemplated in a country where rule of law prevails. The Local Self Government Institution, the 3rd respondent also cannot abdicate its powers, statutorily conferred.

7. Notice having been served on the 3rd respondent, this Court definitely would issue directions to the 3rd respondent, who has to consider the application of the petitioners, produced at Ext.P30 in a reasonable manner after hearing the representatives of the petitioner and the representatives of the 5th respondent; and specify a parking place for the Auto taxies, even at the parking spot,  identified for Autorickshaws. The Local Self Government Institution and the RTA could also, with the help of the Station House Officer having jurisdiction over the particular parking area, insist on a system being maintained wherein, alternatively an Autorickshaw and Auto taxi is allowed to be rented/hired by the general public. However, what is required for such a measure is the will on the part of the authorities, which cannot be substituted by a mere direction from this Court.

8. In any event, for the present, the 3rd respondent after hearing the representatives of the petitioners and the 5th respondent would take a decision in the matter and intimate the decision to the RTA, who is the authority to decide on parking places under Section 344 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, framed under Section 117 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. To facilitate such consideration by the RTA, "The RTA, Sultan Bathery, Wayanad" is suo motu impleaded as the additional 6th respondent. The Registry shall carry out impleadment before issuance of certified copies. The directions herein above shall be complied with by the 3rd respondent within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this judgment and the additional 6th respondent shall convene a meeting of the petitioners as also the representatives of the 5th respondent and arrive at a settlement as directed herein.

With the above directions, the writ petition would stand disposed of.

Sd/-

Tuesday, 19 September 2017

Agreement to sell - Specific performance - Cuttings and interpolations

IMPORTANT DECISIONS(19.09.2017)

Agreement to sell - Specific performance - Cuttings and interpolations - Initialed by vendor - Cuttings and interpolations thus does not make the agreement doubtful. 2014(4) Civil Court Cases 499 (P&H) 

Civil & Criminal liability - Merely because an act has a civil profile is not sufficient to denude it of its criminal outfit. (2010(1) Criminal Court Cases 779 (S.C.)  

Criminal and civil proceedings - Serious allegations, if, involve factum of recovery of money, it cannot be concluded that complaint is purely civil in nature when other serious allegations prima facie attract the penal provisions - Order quashing criminal proceedings set aside. (2015(1) Criminal Court Cases 637 (S.C.)

Delay of 12 hours in sending FIR to Illaqa Magistrate - Delay not explained - Possibility of ante-timing the same cannot be ruled out. (2010(1) Criminal Court Cases 873 (P&H) (DB)  

Dishonour of cheque - Notice - It is not the requirement of law that date of service of statutory notice is to be disclosed in complaint at the stage of summoning. (2016(1) Criminal Court Cases 851 (All.)  

Domestic violence - Committed before commencement of Act which continued even after passing of the Act - Wife is entitled for protection orders and residence orders u/ss 18 & 19 of the Act along with maintenance allowance. (2014(1) Criminal Court Cases 160 (S.C.) 

Economic offences - Serious charges of forgery - Settlement with bank - Proceedings cannot be quashed merely on the ground that accused has settled the amount with bank. (2016(1) Criminal Court Cases 154 (S.C.) 

Eye witnesses - Statement of eye witnesses recorded after three days of occurrence - No explanation - Eye witnesses not wholly reliable witnesses in view of their unexplained silence and delayed statement to police. (2016(2) Apex Court Judgments 347 (S.C.) 

Food adulteration - Right u/s 13(2) of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act exercised by one accused - CFL found sample deteriorated and not in a condition fit for analysis - Benefit of CFL report enures to the benefit of all accused - Proceedings quashed. (2016(2) Apex Court Judgments 215 (S.C.) 

Maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. - Decree dissolving marriage on ground of adultery - Not entitled to maintenance. (2016(1) Criminal Court Cases 094 (Madras) 

Wednesday, 13 September 2017

Market value cannot be fixed by registration authority if there is no doubt as to sale consideration

🇮🇳🇮🇳Market value cannot be fixed by registration authority if there is no doubt as to sale consideration

Hyderabad High Court: The Single Judge Bench of the High Court stated that the market value of a property cannot be single handedly fixed by the registering authorities. The market value of the property can be fixed by such authorities only when there is a doubt regarding the proper market value.
The case before the Court was that the petitioners had purchased the said plot of land through an open auction at a set price of Rs. 15,200 per square yard. The total sale consideration of Rs. 10,57,46,400 was deposited in the Court by the petitioners after which the Court confirmed the sale. As some claim petitions for the suit property filed by third parties were pending, the sale deed could not be executed. Once the third party petitions were dismissed, the petitioner paid a sum of Rs. 74,02,255 towards stamp duty and Rs. 26,43,665 towards registration fee totaling to an amount of Rs. 1,00,45,920, on the total sale consideration of Rs. 10,57,46,400. The respondents then stated that the market value of the property was higher than the sale consideration and hence the stamp duty and registration fee for the property should be more. They kept the registration pending on these grounds. The Court had earlier directed the petitioners to furnish a bank guarantee after which the document would be processed.
The petitioner counsel contended that the petitioners had already paid a stamp duty according to the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 and the direction by the respondents for more stamp duty is not correct. The government pleader on the other hand contended that the market value of the property is to be taken into consideration when fixing stamp duty.
The Court allowed the writ petition stating that since the property was purchased by the petitioners in an auction, the consideration in the case cannot be doubted. The registration authorities cannot fix the market value of the property when there is no doubt regarding the sale consideration. The Court also directed the respondents to return the bank guarantee to the petitioners. [M/s. Super Gold Constructions Pvt. Ltd v. Sub-Registrar, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad, 2017 SCC OnLine Hyd 236, decided on 12.07.2017]🇮🇳🇮🇳

SC:What is "Possession" and to "Occupy".

_*⭐SC:What is "Possession" and to "Occupy".*_

_In common parlance they may be used interchangeably but in law, "possession" amounts to holding property as an owner, while "occupy" is to keep possession by being in it. (Para 7)._

_Case:_
_*Ram Dass Vs. Davinder*_

_Citation:_
_*(2004) 3 SCC 684: AIR 2004 SC 2162.*_

_Bench Strength *- 2*_
_Coram: *R.C. Lahoti and Dr. Ar. Lakshmanan, JJ.*_
***************************
*

Supreme Court: Award of Lok Adalat cannot be challenged by way of suit. Only remedy is to file writ petition in High Court. Bharvagi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, CA No. 11345 of 2017,

Supreme Court: Award of Lok Adalat cannot be challenged by way of suit. Only remedy is to file writ petition in High Court. Bharvagi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, CA No. 11345 of 2017, Decided on 07.09.2017
http://sci.nic.in/supremecourt/2015/26531/26531_2015_Judgement_07-Sep-2017.pdf

Auction sale - Property worth Rs.1 crore sold in auction sale at partly sum of Rs.5,50,000

IMPORTANT DECISIONS (02.09.2017)

Auction sale - Property worth Rs.1 crore sold in auction sale at partly sum of Rs.5,50,000 -  Sufficient ground to set aside sale. (2017(2) Apex Court Judgments 707 (S.C.)

Expert opinion - Should be demonstrative and should be supported by convincing reasons. (2017(2) Apex Court Judgments 747 (S.C.)

Prevention of misuse of S.498-A IPC - Directions issued - These directions will not apply to offences involving tangible physical injuries or death : (a) No arrest normally be effected till report of Family Welfare Committee, to be appointed in every district, is received; (b) Complaints u/s 498-A IPC may be investigated only by a designated Investigating Officer of the area and such designations may be made within one month from  the date of the judgment in the instant case; (c) In cases where settlement is reached, it will be open to District and Sessions Judge or any other senior Judicial officer nominated by him in the district to dispose of the proceedings including closing of criminal case if dispute primarily relates to matrimonial discord; (d) Recovery of disputed dowry items may not by itself be a ground for denial of bail if maintenance or other rights of wife/minor children can otherwise be protected; (e) District Judge or a designated senior judicial officer may club all connected cases between parties arising out of matrimonial dispute; (f) Personal appearance of all family members and particularly outstation members may not be required and trial Court ought to grant exemption from personal appearance or permit appearance by video conferencing without adversely affecting progress of trial. (2017(3) Criminal Court Cases 297 (S.C.)

Rent and eviction - Eviction order on one of the grounds taken by landlord - Merely because landlords have taken possession on the basis of an order of eviction granted on one ground, that does not mean that surviving grounds have become non-est. (2017(2) Apex Court Judgments 717 (S.C.)

Service - Termination - Challenged after 13 years - Termination order contrary to  provisions of Industrial Disputes Act - Compensation granted in lieu of reinstatement without back wages.  (2017(2) Apex Court Judgments 582 (S.C.)

Thursday, 7 September 2017

Supreme Court: Award of Lok Adalat cannot be challenged by way of suit. Only remedy is to file writ petition in High Court. Bharvagi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, CA No. 11345 of 2017,

Supreme Court: Award of Lok Adalat cannot be challenged by way of suit. Only remedy is to file writ petition in High Court. Bharvagi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, CA No. 11345 of 2017, Decided on 07.09.2017
http://sci.nic.in/supremecourt/2015/26531/26531_2015_Judgement_07-Sep-2017.pdf