#judgment Archives - Page 4 of 6

7 Feb

A registered sale deed where the full consideration is paid would operate from the date of its execution: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #judgment, #law, #Registration, #Sale, #SupremeCourt, #TPA

Case title: Kanwar Raj Singh vs Gejo

Case no.: Civil Appeal No. 9098 of 2023

Decided on: 02.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Abhay S. Oka, Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Mithal

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The current appeal stems from a decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The appellant sued for a declaration. She sought a declaration of ownership over the land measuring 71 kanals 8 marlas (“suit property”), citing the executed and registered sale deed. According to the case of the original plaintiff, Smt. Gejo, the first defendant made an interpolation in the sale deed before it was registered, adding that only one-third of a share measuring 23 kanals and 8 marlas was sold. The first defendant contested the suit, claiming that what was sold was the area of 23 kanals and 8 marlas, which was his one-third share of the suit property.

The trial court ruled in favour of the suit. On appeal to the District Court, the Additional District Judge granted the appeal and determined that the correction in the sale deed was genuine and not fraudulent. The plaintiff sought a second appeal before the High Court. The appeal was allowed by the impugned judgement, and the Trial Court’s decree was restored.

ISSUE RAISED:

Can a compulsorily registerable document, once registered under the Registration Act, operate from a date prior to its registration?

LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED:

According to Section 47 of The Registration Act of 1908, a registered document is effective from the time it would have begun to operate if no registration was required. Thus, when a compulsorily registerable document is registered in accordance with the Registration Act, it can begin to operate on a date prior to its registration. The date of the operation will vary depending on the nature of the transaction.

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act of 1984 defines a sale. A sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised, or a partial payment and partial promise.

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act requires that all sale deeds for property worth more than Rs. 100/- be registered. Thus, a vendor-executed sale deed becomes an instrument of sale only after it is registered.

APPELLANTS CONTENTIONS:

The learned counsel contended that the sale took effect on the date the sale deed was registered, not the date it was executed. He contended that the sale deed conveys the same information as the registered sale deed. He claimed that even the agreement for sale signed prior to the execution of the sale deed refers to the sale of a third of the first defendant’s share, not the entire property.

The counsel relied on a Constitution Bench decision in the case of Ram Saran Lall v. Domini Kuer and contended that, under the said decision, the sale was completed when the sale deed was registered, and thus the description of the property recorded in the registered sale deed will prevail.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court ruled that the consideration was paid in full on the date the sale deed was executed. The sale deed was registered with an interpolation concerning the description/area of the property sold. The first defendant admitted that the interpolation occurred after the execution but before the registration. According to Section 47 of the Registration Act, a registered sale deed in which the entire consideration is paid becomes effective on the date of execution. As a result, the original sale deed will be effective. Therefore, the court concluded that the high court’s decision was correct and dismissed the appeal.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

click to read the judgment

7 Feb

Unscrupulous Litigants Should Not Go Scot-Free: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #appeal, #FIR, #judgment, #law, #SupremeCourt, Litigation

Case title: Dinesh Gupta vs The state of Uttarpradesh

Case no.: S.L.P.(Crl.) No.3343 of 2022

Decided on: 11.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Justice Rajesh Bindal

FACTS OF THE CASE:

Owner of M/s D.D. Global Capital Pvt. Ltd., Karan Gambhir has filed a First Information Report (FIR) against Sushil, Rajesh, Dinesh, Baljeet Singh, and other individuals. Among the private limited companies implicated are BDR, Gulab Buildtech, and Verma Buildtech. To reverse the summons order and FIR, Dinesh and Rajesh Gupta filed a petition in High Court. According to the complaint, Karan’s business gave Gulab Buildtech and Verma Buildtech short-term loans that were later converted into debt equity with the promise of large returns.

Despite purportedly forging a share pledge agreement, the complainant was able to secure a sizeable shareholding. Unannounced approval of amalgamation plans decreased the company’s ownership stake. Lawsuit after the accused disregarded the complainant’s requests for loan repayment. IPC Sections 420, 467, and 120-B are the subject of a charge sheet that the police have filed. The appeals took place after the High Court denied the petitions to set aside the summoning order and FIR.

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant contended that a purely civil dispute involving financial transactions between corporations is being framed as a criminal case. Despite the fact that the company has no connection to Gautam Budh Nagar and that all transactions between the parties took place in New Delhi, the complaint was filed in Gautam Budh Nagar.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

They claimed that the accused, working together, defrauded the complainant of crores of rupees by falsely promising higher returns. The High Court’s order contains no errors. The appeals are well-deservedly dismissed.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court determined that if the FIR in question is pursued further, it will constitute an absolute abuse of court process. This is a clear case of malicious prosecution. Regardless of the commercial nature of the dispute, a criminal complaint was filed and a FIR was registered. Abuse of power and legal machinery undermines public trust in the judiciary. FIR and criminal proceedings were quashed, and the complainant was fined ₹25 lakhs to prevent future abuse of judicial remedies.

The court ruled that the respondents should be subject to stringent terms and conditions, including costs. It’s time to firmly examine any lawsuits that have been started and are riddled with deceit, secrecy, and forum shopping. Even state actions or the conduct of government servants who are parties to such malicious litigation should be severely reprimanded. Turning a civil matter into a criminal case not only overburdens the criminal justice system, but also violates the principles of fairness and proper legal conduct.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read the judgement

6 Feb

Power to record additional evidence should only be exercised when the party was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

blog, Blog #evidence, #judgment, #law, #NIact, #SupremeCourt

Case title: Ajitsinh Chehuji Rathod vs State of Gujarat & Anr.

Case no.: SLP(Crl.) No(s). 16641 of 2023

Decided on: 29.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The current SLP appeal is based on a Gujarat High Court order. The appellant was charged with violating Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, alleging that a cheque in the amount of Rs. 10 lakhs issued by the appellant in favour of the complainant Shri Mahadevsinh Cahndaasinh Champavat was dishonoured “for insufficient funds and account dormant” when presented in the bank.

During the trial, the appellant filed an application with the learned trial Court requesting that the cheque be sent to a handwriting expert for comparison of the handwriting and signature appearing on it, claiming that his signatures had been forged on the cheque in question. The trial Court denied the application and convicted the appellant. On appeal, the high court rejected and upheld the conviction. As a result, the Supreme Court is hearing the appeal.

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

The appellant filed the appeal with an application under Section 391 CrPC. According to Section 391 of the CrPC, the power to record additional evidence should only be exercised when the party making such request was prevented from presenting the evidence in the trial despite due diligence, or when the facts giving rise to such prayer were discovered at a later stage during the pendency of the appeal and that non-recording of such evidence may result in the failure of justice.

The NI Act’s Section 118 Subclause (e) clearly presumes that endorsements made on a negotiable instrument are made in the order that they appear on the document. Therefore, the holder of the disputed cheque, who is the complainant in this instance, benefits from the presumption that the endorsements on it are authentic.

APPELLANTS CONTENTIONS:

After comparing the admitted signature of the accused appellant with the signature on the disputed cheque, the appellant filed an application to have the handwriting expert’s opinion. In the aforementioned application, there was also a request to summon the relevant Post Office officer in order to support the defence’s argument that the accused appellant never received the notice required by Section 138 of the NI Act.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court ruled that a certified copy of a bank-issued document is admissible under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act of 1891 even without any formal proof. Thus, we believe that if the appellant wanted to prove that the signatures on the cheque issued from his account were not genuine, he could have obtained a certified copy of his specimen signatures from the Bank and made a request to summon the concerned Bank official in defence to give evidence about the genuineness or otherwise of the signature on the cheque.

The court stated that, despite having the opportunity, the accused appellant did not question the bank official examined in defence to establish his plea of purported mismatch of signature on the cheque in question, and thus, they are of the firm opinion that the appellate Court was not required to come to the appellant’s aid and assistance in collecting defence evidence at his behest. The presumptions under the NI Act, while rebuttable, work in favour of the complainant. As a result, it is up to the accused to rebut such presumptions by presenting appropriate defence evidence, and the Court cannot be expected to assist the accused in gathering evidence on his behalf. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click to read the judgement

5 Feb

A contemnor does not continue to reap the benefits of his disobedience by simply suffering the punishment meted out to him: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #contempt, #judgment, #law, #SupremeCourt

Case title: Amit Kumar Das Vs Shrimati Hutheesingh Tagore Charitable Trust.

Case no.: SLP (Civil) no. 34892 of 2014

Decided on: 30.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose, Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The current appeal rests on the high court divisional bench’s contempt proceedings for the contemnor’s act, which was not only illegal and invalid but also deliberate disobedience to the stay order issued in the first appeal. The Division Bench decided that lifting the stay order from the first appeal would be more justifiable than initiating contempt proceedings.

The problem started when the respondent filed a lawsuit seeking property damage, possession recovery, and title declaration. The possession suit has a ruling from the court. The appellant then filed an appeal in the high court after the respondent filed an execution petition.

On March 3, 2010, the high court issued a stay order and told the appellant to deposit the amount of 10 lakhs within two months.

ISSUES:

Is it correct for the court to lift the stay in order to bring forth contempt proceedings?

APPELLANTS CONTENTION:

The appellant argued that the High Court’s exercise of contempt jurisdiction precluded it from reversing the stay order issued in the appeal. He would point out that the High Court shouldn’t have used this tactic in the contempt case and that the Trust didn’t take any action to request such relief in the appeal.

RESPONDENTS CONTENTION:

Respondent trust argued that the stay order dated 03.03.2010 in the appeal stood vacated automatically in terms of order thereof, as there was a default in the making of deposits as directed in the earlier clauses, and therefore the impugned order does not warrant interference at this stage.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:

The court referred to the cases of Mohammad Idris vs. Rustam Jehangir Babuji and Mazdoor Sangh (BMS) vs. Baranagore Jute Factory PLC. The courts upheld a principle in these rulings: in addition to penalising a contemnor for disobeying its commands, the Court may make sure that the contemnor does not continue to profit from his disobedience by simply receiving the punishment that has been meted out to him.

The court in this case determined that because of the particular facts of this case, the High Court’s exercise of contempt jurisdiction in vacating the stay order in the appeal did not take on a restitutive or remedial nature. Even the High Court found that the stay order’s status quo condition had been fully violated, and vacating the order had no effect on returning the parties to their pre-violation positions or denying the contemnor the benefit of the already-concluded disobedience.

It is evident that the High Court’s action exceeded the limits of its contempt jurisdiction, and it is therefore unsupportable. In that sense, the contested order is revoked. We believe it is appropriate to remand the case to the High Court so that it can continue with the exercise of contempt jurisdiction, as we have now set aside the High Court’s alternative course of action, even though the High Court refrained from doing so due to this misguided measure, even though it found the contemnor guilty of wilfully violating the status quo condition in the stay order.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click to read the judgement

2 Feb

The accused’s intention is an essential factor for conviction in SC/ST atrocities cases: Supreme Court

Prime Legal

Blog, blog #judgment, #law, #scst, #SupremeCourt, conviction

Case title: Dashrath Sahu Vs State Of Chattisgarh

Case no.: SLP(Crl.) No(s). 6367 of 2023

Decided on: 29.01.2024

Quorum: Hon’ble Justice B.R Gavai, Hon’ble Justice Sandeep Mehta, Hon’ble Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

The appellant was convicted of offences punishable under Sections 451, 354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act. He received a one-year sentence of simple imprisonment and a fine.

The appellant filed a challenge to the said judgement in the High Court of Chhattisgarh. During the course of the appeal, the accused appellant and the prosecutrix/complainant appear to have reached an amicable settlement. The High Court accepted the compromise application for the offences punishable under Sections 354 and 451 IPC and acquitted the accused, but rejected it for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, stating that it is not compoundable and the minimum sentence is six months. As a result, the accused appellant’s sentence of simple imprisonment for one year on that count was reduced to six months.

The appellant filed the present appeal after being dissatisfied with the order dated March 21, 2023.

ISSUE:

whether the rejection of the application under Section 320 CrPC and the appellant’s conviction for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act were legitimate and justified?

LEGAL PROVISIONS:

Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act of 1989 addresses punishments for atrocities of assault or the use of force with the intent to dishonour or outrage the modesty of any SC/ST women.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:

The court ruled that the section, taken literally, makes it quite evident that the offence of outraging modesty has to be committed with the knowledge or intent that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste.

According to the FIR and the prosecutrix’s sworn testimony, the accused did not commit the offending act with the intention of doing so against a Scheduled Caste member.

The court cited the case of Masumsha Hasanasha Musalman Vs. State of Maharashtra, in which the court ruled that the language of Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act is pari materia because it also states that the offence must be committed against a person belonging to a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe with the intent that it was done on the basis of caste.

As a result, the accused appellant’s conviction for the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act, which was recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court, is set aside and quashed.

Written by – Surya Venkata Sujith

Click here to read the judgment

1 2 3 4 5 6