April 23, 2018

Today's Important Indian High Courts Cases [Monday, 23rd April 2018]

1. Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. ABL International Ltd. [Calcutta High Court]

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - S.11(6) - Appointment of an Arbitrator - Extension of Lease - Renewal - effect of non-registration and non-stamping of the lease deed - Lock-in-Period.

Contract Act, 1872 - S. 73 - Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract.

2. Chandanlal v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Whether conviction can be based only on the basis of the extra judicial confession of the accused.

3. Irfana Ahmad v. State [Jammu & Kashmir High Court]

A pronouncement of law by a Division Bench of High Court is binding on a Division Bench of the same or a smaller number of the Judges, and in order that such decision be binding, it is not necessary that it should be a decision rendered by the Full Court or a Constitution Bench of the Court.

4. Nityananda Patnaik v. Director General and I.G. of Police [Orissa High Court]

When an application for correction of the date of birth was made near about the time of superannuation, it shall not be corrected.

5. Kasinath Jena v. Gangadhar Swain [Orissa High Court]

Mere possession of the suit land for long time is not suffice to hold that the defendant has perfected title by way of adverse possession, unless the classical requirements of adverse possession nec vi, nec clam, nec precario are pleaded and proved.

6. Nabakishore Prusty v. Biswanath Deb [Orissa High Court]

Claim to title and adverse possession is mutually inconsistent.

7. Sandeep Ramchandra Yeole v. State of Maharashtra [Bombay High Court]

If the construction already existing if branded illegal can be regularised within the framework of relevant regulations and after following necessary formalities, the Municipal Council shall be at liberty to take appropriate steps. In the event the Municipal Council finds it cannot regularise existing construction, appropriate steps shall be taken for demolition of illegal construction in observance of the procedure prescribed in that behalf. 

8. Shirishkumar v. Bhandara Zilla Bahuddeshiya Apang Vikas Sanstha [Bombay High Court]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Ss. 138 & 141 - Prosecution against Director or Authorised Signatory of cheque, without arraigning of company as accused is not maintainable.

9. Duryodhan Jena v. Baikuntha Nath Samal [Orissa High Court]

Can the order of settlement in a proceeding under Sec. 36-A of the Orissa Land Reforms (O.L.R.) Act be challenged in a civil suit ?

10. Gopinath Naik v. Baliguda Pastorate Union [Orissa High Court]

Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law.

11. Bhagaban Bag v. Dama Bag [Orissa High Court]

Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - S.123 - Gift -Transfer how effected - for the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses - thus, no title passed by virtue of the unregistered gift deed.

12. Dayanidhi Baidya v. Keshaba Baidya [Orissa High Court]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - O. 9 R. 13, O. 43 R. 1 & S. 96 - Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant - When an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C is dismissed, the defendant can prefer an appeal in terms of Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C. Once such an appeal is dismissed, the appellant cannot raise the same contention in the first appeal. The defendant cannot raise a contention as regards the correctness or otherwise of the order posting the suit for ex parte hearing by the trial court and/or existence of a sufficient case for non-appearance of the defendant before it. It is open to the defendant to argue in the first appeal filed by him under Section 96(2) of the Code on the merits of the suit so as to enable him to contend that the materials brought on record by the plaintiffs were not sufficient for passing a decree in his favour or the suit was otherwise not maintainable.

13. Pradeep Kumar Jain v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court]

Necessity to assign reasons in administrative, quasi-judicial and judicial orders.
Previous Post
Next Post