Comment : In this case an unregistered firm sued to recover possession from a tenant (erstwhile insofar as term of tenancy had ceased) – the suit was resisted on the ground that since the basis of suit lied in contract entered into with tenant – it is hit by the mischief of S.69 and an […]Read More Eviction of Tenant by unregistered partnership firm !
Comment : In this case a person sold X (leasehold warehouse) to his friend. Later he cried misrepresentation and sought to steer clear of the transaction. Later at the stage of second appeal he took the plea of frustration as he himself was a lessee of the land and could not have sold – the court […]Read More Cancellation of Transaction on account of Frustration !
Supreme Court of India Shree Hanuman Cotton Mills & Ors vs Tata Air-Craft Ltd on 28 October, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1970 AIR 1986, 1970 SCR (3) 127 Bench: Vaidyialingam, C.A. PETITIONER: SHREE HANUMAN COTTON MILLS & ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: TATA AIR-CRAFT LTD. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/10/1969 BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. BENCH: VAIDYIALINGAM, C.A. SHELAT, J.M. DUA, […]Read More Contract–Money deposited as earnest money–Breach committed by buyer-Right of seller to forfeit-Principles. Contract Act (9 of 1872), ss. 64 and 74-Scope of.
Supreme Court on Benami Transactions Supreme Court of India Samittri Devi & Anr. vs Sampuran Singh & Anr. on 21 January, 2011 Author: Gokhale Bench: Dalveer Bhandari, H.L. Gokhale IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 846 OF 2011 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 1305 OF 2010 […]Read More Supreme Court on Benami Transactions
Comment : In this case the court held a bank liable for criminal breach of trust where it misappropriated the govt. securities pledged with it by the pledgor to secure overdraft – in actuality no overdraft was procured. The defence of S.79 of the bank was negatived for the simple reason that bank could not be […]Read More Liability of Pledgee for Criminal Breach of Trust
Comments : In this case the court held that even though no specific charge u/s 306 is framed – the accused can be convicted under the same (S.221(2) CrPC) if otherwise 304B/498A was framed. Supreme Court of India K. Prema S. Rao And Anr. vs Yadla Srinivasa Rao And Ors. on 25 October, 2002 […]Read More Conviction u/s 306 IPC in absence of a charge to the effect.
Comment : We, therefore, are of the opinion that the judgment in a criminal case was not relevant in evidence for the purpose of proving a person’s civil liability and the other way round. Supreme Court of India Seth Ramdayal Jat vs Laxmi Prasad on 15 April, 2009 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Mukundakam […]Read More Is criminal judgment binding on a civil case ?
Supreme Court of India State Bank Of India & Anr vs Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd on 6 July, 2006 Author: S Sinha Bench: S Sinha, P Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2801 of 2006 PETITIONER: State Bank of India & Anr. RESPONDENT: Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/07/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha […]Read More Supreme Court on S.92 Evidence Act – Doctrine of Conclusivity of Documentary Evidence.
A decision on inference arising from possession of fruits of crime – soon after the occurence, in absence of reasonable explanation may lead to inference of complicity, also a preposition on Life Sentence means incarceration till last breathe and not 14 or 20 years. The possession of the fruits of the crime recently after it […]Read More Supreme Court on Possession of fruits of crime in murder case
Supreme Court of India Krishna Mohan Kul @ Nani Charan Kul … vs Pratima Maity And Ors. on 9 September, 2003 Equivalent citations: AIR 2003 SC 4351, 2004 (1) JCR 30 SC Author: A Pasayat Bench: D Raju, A Pasayat JUDGMENT Arijit Pasayat, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. By the impugned judgment, learned Single Judge […]Read More Burden of Proving good faith of transactions hit by undue influence