Monday, 17 July 2017

Amendment of plaint - Allowed -

*DAILY LEGAL UPDATES (13.07.2017)*

Amendment of plaint - Allowed - Statement of plaintiff not to lead evidence relating to amendment - Trial Court may allow defendant to put any evidence in support of their defence relating to the amendment allowed. (2017(2) CIVIL COURT CASES 817 (Rajasthan)

Cruelty - Business partner of husband does not come within purview of S.498-A IPC. (2017(1) Criminal Court Cases 339 (Allahabad)

Document - Not sufficiently stamped and not duly registered, when it was so required - Cannot be admitted in evidence for any purpose. (2017(1) Civil Court Cases 594 (Hyderabad)

Illegal detention - State to pay compensation of Rs.1 lakh. (2017(2) Criminal Court Cases 344 (P&H)

No instructions - It is difficult for Courts to meet expenditure to issue notice to opposite party, who conveniently avoided process of Court, in case Advocate reported no instructions on behalf of his clients. (2017(2) Civil Court Cases 121 (Hyderabad)

Rejection of plaint - Suit for specific performance - Suit barred by limitation - Plaint rightly rejected. 2016(Suppl.) Civil Court Cases 252 (Rajasthan)

Suit filed by un-registered firm - Not maintainable against any party. 2017(1) Civil Court Cases 156 (P&H)

*Back window*

Ad interim injunction - Alienation - If defendant is permitted to alienate disputed property then it will give rise to multiplicity of suits, which is not legally permissible - Order of status quo, upheld. (2014(3) Civil Court Cases 234 (P&H)

Appeal against conviction - Appellant absconded - Not a ground for dismissal of his appeal. (2010(1) Criminal Court Cases 114   (P&H) (DB)

Contempt of Court  -  Once Court passes an order, parties cannot avoid implementation of that order by seeking refuge under any statutory rule - It is not open to parties to go behind orders and truncate effect of those orders. 2014(2) APEX COURT J 529 (S.C.)

Dishonour of cheque - Complaint before expiry of 15 days from the date on which notice is served - It is no complaint in the eye of law - Merely because at the time of taking cognizance period of 15 days has expired from the date on which notice has been served, Court is not clothed with jurisdiction to take cognizance. 2014(4) Civil Court Cases 305 (S.C.)

Dishonour of cheque - Money lender -  Not debarred from instituting complaint u/s 138 of the Act. (2014(3) Civil Court Cases 780 (Delhi)

Electricity - Meter burnt or completely non functional - Provision of Section 26(6) Electricity Act has no application. (2007(1) APEX COURT J 317 (S.C.)

Khasra entries - Do not convey title of suit property. (2014(3) APEX COURT J 590 (S.C.)

Lease deed - Unregistered - Payment of eleven times penalty under Stamp Act - Does not cure the basic defect of non registration of lease deed. (2014(3) Civil Court Cases 276 (P&H)

O.27.Rr.8-A & 8-B CPC are applicable only to the Government and not to instrumentality or agency of the State. (2014(3) Civil Court Cases 064 (S.C.)

Private defence - Exceeding right by one accused - Guilt of each accused, who had exceeded the right of private defence, has to be dealt with separately - Constructive liability as envisaged u/s 34 IPC is not attracted. 2014(2) APEX COURT J 520 (S.C.)

Res judicata - Where two or more suits have been disposed of by one common judgment but separate decrees, there can be no `former suit' as stipulated by S.11 CPC - Non filing of an appeal against one or more of those suits ought not to preclude the consideration of other appeals on merits and the principle of res judicata would be applicable to the judgment which is common and not to the decrees drawn on the basis of that common judgment. (2014(3) APEX COURT J 763 (S.C.)

Sale deed - Declaration sought by non executant that it is null and void - Required to pay fixed Court fee. 2014(4) Civil Court Cases 699 (M.P.)

Service - Temporary or ad hoc appointment - No person can be appointed even on temporary or ad hoc basis without inviting applications from all eligible candidates. (2014(3) APEX COURT J 374 (S.C.)

Specific performance - Sale consideration payable in instalments within the period stipulated in the agreement not paid - Plaintiff not entitled to decree of specific performance. (2014(3) APEX COURT J 262 (S.C.)

Test identification parade - Accused identified by the witnesses at the time of arrest itself - Holding identification parade would have been a futile exercise/inconsequential. (2010(1) Criminal Court Cases 789 (S.C.)



Attached herewith is the judgment of High Court, J.K. Mittal & Company vs. Union of India & Ors. dated .12.7.2017 clarifying applicability of GST upon Advocates.  This is perhaps the first ruling on the subject.

  Click here

A-43, Lajpat Nagar-2,
New Delhi-110 024
Ph. 011-29830000, 29840000
E-Mail :
Website :

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 – Builders & Developers – 10 plots were booked by the complainant –

Consumer Law; Bhojram Verma Vs. Vatsalya Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. [SCDRC Chhattisgarh, 05-07-2017]

Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 17 – Builders & Developers – 10 plots were booked by the complainant – Whether the complainant is a consumer ?  Held, It can safely be presumed that the complainant purchased the above plots for commercial purpose or for re-investment purpose. There is no pleadings or evidence to show that the plots booked by the complainants are exclusively for the purpose of his livelihood by self employment. Therefore, the complainant booked the 10 plots and all agreements were executed in the name of the complainant, hence, the complainant purchased the above plots for commercial purpose. The complainant is not consumer and the dispute between the parties is not consumer dispute, hence the complaint is not maintainable and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.



Complaint Case No.CC/2016/85

OR D E R Dated : 05/07/2017

Bhojram Verma, S/o Late Awadhram Vrma, Aged about 56 years, R/o : Village Kukurdih, Post – Balodabazar, District Balodabazar (C.G.) … Complainant.


1. Local Branch Manager, Vatsalya Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd., Block B-1, Pujari Chambers, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur, District Raipur, Pin Code – 492001 (Chhattisgarh).

Sunday, 16 July 2017

Free legal aid

Important Judgments (14/07/2017)

Important Judgments (14/07/2017)

Employees of KSRTC who rejoin duty after availing leave without allowances for taking up employment elsewhere would lose cadre seniority impairing their right to claim cadre promotion - 2017 (3) KHC 631 (FB)

JJ Act, 2015 — Offences against children — Petty offences and serious offences can be tried before Magistrate Court - 2017 (3) KHC 656

Art.226 - Even if order of High Court is wrong, it is not for the Authorities to decide the correctness - 2017 (3) KHC  721 (DB)

Sale of liquor by KSBC – Long queue of people causing nuisance and obstruction – Remedial measures mooted by Court  - 2017 (3) KHC 717

BRC Act – Eviction sought for residential purposes – Each and every member of family is competent to give evidence to prove bona fides of their common need - 2017 (3) KHC 646 (DB)

An order refusing to renew a gun licence issued under the Act is appealable under S.18 of Arms Act - 2017 (3) KHC 668

Liquor - 500 mtr Distance rule — Making of a road within private property of hotel can only be seen as a measure to overreach the distance rule provided by the Apex Court - 2017 (3) KHC 677

Conditions of service of Teachers of Unaided Schools are matters which are capable of being adjudicated upon in exercise of the power under Article 226 - 2017 (3) KHC 687

It is for the State in consultation with the High Court to declare the cadre and its strength of District Judges – Cadre strength is to be calculated on the basis of the posts which are brought in the cadre - 2017 (3) KHC 703 (DB)

Demand of the Bar Council of Kerala by way of resumption fee styled as special fee over and above the resumption fee of Rs 7,000/- prescribed by the Bar Council of India is ultra vires, invalid and illegal - 2017 (3) KHC 14 (SN)

CrPC S.313 - Accused not a highly educated person – Trial Judge framing questions in English and recording answers given by the accused in Malayalam – Held, not proper  - 2017 (3) KHC 13 (DB) (SN)

Possession of arrack – Delay of nearly five years in producing samples before Court – Held, if delay is very long, no amount of explanation in explaining the delay can save the prosecution - 2017 (3) KHC 642

Allegation of misappropriation of money from bank — Ordering removal from service of employee is proper - 2017 (3) KHC 653

JJ Act 2015 – Children’s Court can try offences only if at least one of the offences alleged is punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding seven years irrespective of whether the offence is under IPC or under any other law for the time being in force - 2017 (3) KHC 656

Participation in State level competition on the strength of Court order – Denial of certificates and grade – Not justified - 2017 (3) KHC 662 (DB)

Dismissal from service – Industrial dispute raised after ten years and Government making a reference – Delay fatal - 2017 (3) KHC 665

Subletting — Sharing of possession by tenant with others by inducting strangers into the tenanted premises or diverting exclusive possession of tenanted premises or a portion thereof would attract sublease - 2017 (3) KHC 673 (DB)

BRC Act - Goodwill of a business carried on by tenant is not a factor to be considered in the assessment of comparative hardship - 2017 (3) KHC 694(DB)

Candidate, who was an independent Member belonging to LDF coalition during the term of the Committee, submitting nomination as a candidate of the INC with UDF coalition – Held, amounts to disqualification under the Anti defection Act  - 2017 (3) KHC 697

MACT - Tribunal awarding compensation in excess of what was claimed by the claimants – Appeal by the claimants seeking further enhancement — Not maintainable if they could not bring out anything by which they were deprived of or refused; and was legally entitled to - 2017 (3) KHC 710 (DB)

Malpractice in declaring a patient to be brain dead – Court recommends Central Government and State Government to consider issuance of directives in the matter - 2017 (3) KHC 730 (DB)

Wednesday, 12 July 2017

Top Interesting Landmark Judgements(SC) Every Advocates Needs To Know About

Top Interesting Landmark Judgements(SC) Every Advocates Needs To Know About

1. Shreya Singhal V/s Union of India in 2015

The SC held section 66A of the Information Technology Act which allows the arrest for offensive content which is posted through the internet as unconstitutional and hence, struck down by the impugned section. 

2. NALSA V/s Union of India in 2014

The Court recognized rights of the transgender as third genders. Also, ordered government to treat them as minorities. Reservations in jobs, education and other amenities shall also be given to them.

3. Lily Thomas V/s Union of India in 2013

The SC of India held that if any members of a legislative council, member of the legislative assembly or members of Parliament who was convicted of a crime and awarded a minimum of two-year imprisonment, he/she shall lose membership of the House with immediate effect.

4. Naz foundation V/s NCT in 2009

The court decriminalized sexual activities “against the order of nature” which included homosexual acts, as per Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. But this judgement was overruled in 2013 by the SC of India.

5. Aarushi talwar case in 2008

The involved the double murder of 14-year-old Aarushi Talwar and her 45-year-old domestic servant in Noida, Haryana. The case got a heavy media coverage. Rajesh and Nupur Talwar, parents of the murdered girl were convicted and sentenced them to life imprisonment by Sessions court.

6. Jessica Murder case in 2006

A model in New Delhi working as a bartender was shot dead. The prime accused Manu Sharma who son of Congress MP Vinod Sharma was initially acquitted in February 2006. But later, in December 2006 was sentenced to life imprisonment by a fast track hearing by the Delhi High Court. This Supreme Court of India approved the sentence.

7. Om Prakash Vs Dil Bahar in 2006

The SC held that even if medical evidence did not prove it was rape,a rape accused could be imprisoned on the sole evidence of the victim,

8. Rameshwar Prasad V/s Union of India in 2005

In this case, the petitioner challenged the constitutional validity of a notification. The notification ordered closure of the legislative Assembly of the state of Bihar on the ground that attempts were being made to get majority by illegal means. It also laid claim to form the government in the state if continued would lead to tampering with constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court held that notification was unconstitutional.

9. State of Tamil NaduV/s Suhas Katti in 2004

This was the first case involving sentence under the Information Technology Act 2000 which is related to the posting of offensive messages through the Internet. In this case a family friend of a woman who is divorced was suspected of posting her number on messenger groups which made her to being harassed by vulgar messages. Later the accused friend was convicted and sentenced.

10. Best bakery case in 2006

In 2006 a Special Court in Mumbai was formed which gave conviction to nine out of the seventeen accused. The case is related to fourteen deaths in an arson attack in 2002 on the Best Bakery in Vadodara. After a local court acquitted all 21 accused a retrial was ordered in 2004.

11. Vishaka V/s State of Rajasthan in 1997

This was a case of Public Interest Litigation against Rajasthan state and Union of India by other women groups and Vishaka. The judgment also gives the basic definition for sexual harassment at workplaces along with guidelines to deal with it. This judgement says that every instance of sexual harassment can be considered as violation of fundamental rights.

12. Samatha V/s State of Andra Pradesh in 1997

The Supreme Court said that tribal land, forest land and government land in scheduled areas cannot be leased to non-tribal for mining or industrial or private companies. Such activities can only be done by any government undertakings or by tribal people.

13. Jamaat-e-Islami V/s Hind Union of India in 1995

High Court banned an association due to its illegal activities. But, when this was brought to the SC, decision was reversed due to lack of evidence.

14. R. Rajagopal v/s State of Tamil Nadu in 1994

The case decided that even if a matter became one of public record the right to privacy should be subsisted. Thus right to be let alone is considered as part of personal liberty.

15. Babri Masjid Ayodhya Case in 1994

This case questioned the Constitutional validity of the acquisition of an area beside the disputed site. The SC upheld status quo on the disputed structures.

16. SR Bommai v. Union of India in 1994

In this case court laid down the guidelines in proving a majority under Article 356 of the constitution of India.

17. Indra Swahey v/s Union of India in 1992

The SC upheld the implementation of recommendations which is made by the Mandal Commission. It also defines the “creamy layer” criteria and restated that the quota could not exceed 50%.

18. MC Mehta v. Union of India, 1986

MC Mehta filed a Public Interest Litigation for escape of poisonous gases by a plant in Bhopal. The court in this case extended the scope of Article 21 and 32 of the Constitution of India. The case is also famous as Bhopal Gas Tragedy.

19. Kehar Singh V/s Delhi Administration in 1984

Kehar Singh was accused of involved in the murder of Indira Gandhi. Even though death sentence was upheld by the SC , its accuracy has frequently questioned

20. Maneka Gandhi V/s Union of India in 1978

This case caused a huge noise over the definition of freedom of speech and it is a varied interpretation to the meaning of ‘personal liberty and life’ under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court held that the procedure must not violate any fundamental rights and it must be fair.

21.Indira Gandhi V/s Raj Narain in 1975

After the order of the Allahabad High Court to vacate seat for malpractices Indira Gandhi declared Emergency . The SC later reversed the decision. The SC also added democracy, judicial review, rule of law and jurisdiction of SC under Article 32.

22. M. Nanavati V/s State of Maharashtra in 1960

In this case Commander Kawas Maneckshaw Nanavati murdered his wife's lover Prem Ahuja. It marked the end of jury trial in India when the officer was let off. The SC overturned the High Court’s decision and held Nanavati not guilty of murder.

23. Champakam Dorairajan V/s State of Madras in 1951

This case concerned about the admission of backward classes to educational institutions led Ambedkar, then the law minister to pilot the 1st -ever amendment to the Constitution.

24. Minerva Mills V/s Union of India in 1980 The SC again applied the basic structure' theory, saying that social welfare laws could not curb fundamental rights.

Advocate Walfare misappropriation