FIRST LAW

Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 14 & 17(4A) - the observations as made in the order impugned after paragraph 11 had been rather unnecessary and the learned Single Judge, with respect, has been in error in issuing generalised directions and that too, to the extent that the borrowers have a right to be heard in the proceedings under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act.

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - S. 482 - Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 498A & 114 - Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 - Ss. 3 & 4 - Quashing of FIR - C hoosing of forum - Petitioner  mother-in-law  is aged about 59 years -  She has to travel all the way from her native place in Andhra Pradesh to Davanagere to attend the case which causes her hardship and she is roped in the case to harass in that way   - Proceedings against the petitioner are nothing but the abuse of the process of the Court .

1. Century Comforts v. State of Karnataka, 14-09-2018  Hotel Industry - Denial of exemption in payment of Stamp Duty, which was promised by the State Government - The petitioner was called upon to establish a Hotel under the Tourism policy of the State Government. The Tourism policy and the order made in the Tourism policy provides that the concession and incentives can be availed by the persons who establish the Hotels in terms of the Tourism policy for a period of five years starting from 20.10.2009 to 19.10.2014. The approval granted on 13.04.2010 to the petitioner was well within the period stated in the order dated 20.10.2009. The petitioner having acted in terms of the promise held out by the respondents, the subsequent notification issued by the Department of Revenue fixing the period as 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2014, is clearly detrimental to the interest of the petitioner. The non- coordination between the Department of Tourism and Department of Revenue, which gave rise to t...

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 11 - When the parties stand at conflict and the disputes do exist, which have not been resolved; and for the reason of failure of the procedure for appointment of Arbitrator, it is just and proper that an independent arbitrator be appointed to adjudicate upon and decide the disputes between the parties, including their claims, counter claims and objections. Aryan Builders and Developers v. Raman Kumar Singh, 03-09-2018 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - In a suit for declaration, it is for the plaintiff to establish his title by producing cogent evidence before the Court. It is for the Court to accept or reject the evidence of the Special Power of Attorney holder at the final stage of the suit. If, according to the defendant, the Special Power of Attorney holder is not competent person to adduce evidence in this suit, it is for the defendant to take advantage of the situation and request the court at the final stage not to accept the evid...

Criminal P.C. 1973 - S. 441- Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 323 & 307 r/w. 34 - Bond of accused and sureties - Cash Security - Solvent Sureties - Seeking cash security from the accused as pre-condition for grant of bail amounts to defeating Article 21 of the Constitution - The procedure of obtaining Solvency Certificate causes procedural difficulties to the sureties, therefore, such condition shall not be insisted - S.441 of Cr.P.C. does not contemplate furnishing of solvent sureties - The whole purpose of seeking solvent sureties or personal bond is to secure the accused before the Court for trial - The conditions imposed shall not be such that they defeat the bail order granted.

Evidence Law - If there is any inconsistency in the evidence of the eye witnesses and the medical evidence, the Court has to believe the evidence of the eye witnesses. In other words, ocular evidence prevail over the medical evidence.

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 302 & 34 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Ss. 15, 16, 17, 18 & 20 - Accused was a senior leader of 'Popular Front of India' - Whether the 'Popular Front of India', is not a banned organization and therefore, inclusion of offences under the UA Act, was unwarranted. 

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  S. 138 -  Limitation Act, 1963 - Ss. 18 & 19 -    Effect of acknowledgment in writing -  Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy -   cheques were undated and issued on 29.10.2004 - presented for encashment on 29.8.2008 after three years from the date of issuance of the same -  Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly held that the materials made available on record are not sufficient to conclude that the accused has committed the offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act.

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 -  Section 138 - O n the date of issuing the cheque, there was no legally recoverable debt which was due by the accused to the complainant Bank -  it was filled on a later date by a clerk of the Bank -  it is proved that as on the date of issuance of the blank cheque, there was no legal liability of the accused to pay any amount to the complainant, which is evident from the evidence of PW-1 the Manager of the bank himself - complainant – Bank has also not produced any account extract relating to the loan account of the accused -  there is no infirmity in the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Trial Court .