Important Case Laws Pronounced Today [Thursday, 28 June 2018]

1. Farooq Ahmad Dar v. State [Jammu & Kashmir High Court, u/s 561-A No.176 of 2017]

No official can be booked for the commission of criminal misconduct on the allegation of any illegality committed in absence of any concrete material showing the deal of bribe or embezzlement.

2. Surendra Pratap Singh v. State [Madhya Pradesh High Court, R.P. No. 638 of 2017]

Simple self-serving statement that the petitioners are social workers is not sufficient to invoke the public interest writ jurisdiction of this Court unless the petitioners are able to produce on record to the satisfaction of the Court such social work in last couple of years is in the area in respect of which the public interest writ petition is filed.

3. Hari Prasad Budhia v. State [Chattisgarh High Court, W.P.(C) No. 1196 of 2015]

Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 - Ss. 299A & 308A - Municipal Commissioner has no authority to revise the purpose of construction, order permitting the construction at the stage of completion of such construction - The best course would have been to refer the matter to State Government with request to invoke the powers u/s. 299-A of the Act, 1956, on account of non- fulfillment of requirement of the scheme of Town and Country Planning Department - Secondly, without working out whether the construction has exceeded Floor Area Ratio (FAR), the order passed about demolishing the so called excess construction is also not in accordance with the provisions u/s. 308A, Part (b) of the Act, 1956.

Comments

Presumptions are the Bats of the Law, Flitting in the Twilight, but Disappearing in the Sunshine of Actual Facts [ORDER]

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - failure on the part of the complainant to produce his account statement and absence of entry in accounts maintained by him regarding loan advanced to the accused, does show that there was no material to support the basic facts on which the entire case of the complainant was based. Sufficient material was available on record whereby the defence of the accused became probable. In such a situation, the presumption under the provisions of the Act ceased to operate and the burden fell upon the complainant to prove his case, which he failed to do by placing on record cogent evidence.

500+ Supreme Court of India Judgments on Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with Head Notes & Citations

1. Mallamma (dead) By Lrs. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. [07-04-2014]

Adverse Possession | Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur, C.A. No. 7764 of 2014 07-08-2019 SC

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA | Arun Mishra , S. Abdul Nazeer & M.R. Shah C.A. No.7764 of 2014 with S.L.P. (C) Nos. 8332 - 8333 of 2014 Radhakrishna Reddy (d) Through Lrs. v. G. Ayyavoo & Ors. August 07, 2019 Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 65 - Adverse Possession - Plea of acquisition of title by adverse possession can be taken by plaintiff under Article 65 of the Limitation Act and there is no bar under the Limitation Act, 1963 to sue on aforesaid basis in case of infringement of any rights of a plaintiff. A person in possession cannot be ousted by another person except by due procedure of law and once 12 years' period of adverse possession is over, even owner's right to eject him is lost and the possessory owner acquires right, title and interest possessed by the outgoing person/owner as the case may be against whom he has prescribed. In our opinion, consequence is that once the right, title or interest is acquired it can be used as a sword by the plaintiff as well...

FIRST LAW

Search This Blog