FIRST LAW

The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Section 11 (1) - W hether the High Court can issue a direction to a tenant, in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to vacate the premises occupied by him, inspite of the bar under Section 11(1) of the Act.

The Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 - Section 14 -  Insofar as the non mentioning of some of the items of the properties in the affidavit filed under Section 14 (1) is concerned, it is evident that only five items of properties were situated within the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate. The clear wording in Section 14 would show that the assistance can be sought by the secured creditor of any of the secured asset. Furthermore, the orders impugned would reveal that the learned Magistrate was aware of the averment in the affidavit that the secured creditor was intending to proceed against only five items of properties as against the 11 items mentioned in Section 13 (2) notice. Thus, there is no suppression or misstatement as contended by the petitioner.

Penal Code, 1860 - Ss. 294 (b), 506, 323, 34 - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - S. 31 –  Penalty for breach of protection order by respondent - Cognizance and proof -  Accused persons had gone to the residence and threatened and manhandled - therefore ordinarily the matter would require investigation - No illegality or impropriety has been committed in the registration of the crime.

Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 465, 468 and 474 - Even the complainant is not certain or sure whether the petitioner has committed an act of forgery. All the allegations raised against the petitioner are based on surmises and conjectures and on the belief of the complainant. There is no definite and specific allegation in the complaint that the petitioner is the person who has made the handwritten copy of the chattapathram of the year 1075 M.E. The ingredients of the offence of forgery are not made out against the petitioner from the allegations/averments in the complaint. It follows that the offences punishable under Sections 465, 468 and 474 are not made out against the petitioner.

The Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1965 - Section 11 (1) -  The authorities under the Act are not supposed to decide the title in dispute between the parties since law does not extend its jurisdiction to adjudging the title of parties to the alleged tenanted premises. Such a function to decide title is exclusively confined by law to civil courts. The authority of the functionaries under the Act is only to ascertain whether denial of title in the proceedings is bonafide or not.

Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Sections 14 and 15 - Jurisdiction, powers and authority of the Central Administrative Tribunal and State Administrative Tribunals -  All service matters concerning a member of any All-India Service pertaining to the service of such member in connection with the affairs of any State can only be decided by the CAT which has jurisdiction - Persons covered by Section 14(1)(b) of the Act are expressly excluded from the gamut of Section 15(1)(b) of the Act in the grant of reliefs by the KAT in an application.

The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 25 - Permanent Alimony and Maintenance - In order to claim permanent alimony by a wife, what is to be considered is the amount required by the wife to maintain a standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious, but should be modestly consistent with the status of the family.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 420 - M ere failure to return the security deposit will not attract the offence of cheating.

The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 -  Section 482 - The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 376 - Rape - Quashing of Complaint -  Whether the prosecution against the petitioner for committing an offence punishable under Section 376 I.P.C can be quashed on the ground that the parties have compromised and settled the matter and that the petitioner has married the victim of the offence.

Road Development - Having taken a decision and having collected funds also for developing the road, the State Government is not at liberty to back out from the project, since the projects are still in force.

The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Notice - the omission or error in the notice to mention the nature of the debt or liability, does not render it invalid.

Customs Act, 1962 - Section 108 (3) - Statutory right to appear before the officer through an authorised agent - Petitioner is a woman who Summoned as a witness - Act only confers discretion on the officer concerned to decide as to whether or not the witness concerned is to be present in person or through authorised agent - Personal presence of the petitioner as a witness is highly imperative and necessary and therefore the petitioner is liable to appear in person and not through an authorised agent - It is ordered that a woman customs officer shall be personally present throughout the questioning process.

Administrative Law - Having silently participated in the whole process of selection without agitating their contentions at any time before the selection process started, they cannot be heard to say that the ranked list already published should be disturbed. V. Chitambaresh & A.M. Babu, JJ.  Sheeja U.M. v. Director of Collegiate Education , O.P. (KAT) No. 119 of 2019 12-04-2019

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 324 and 120B – Murder - Right of Private Defence - For the accused to successfully plead and put forth a case of self-defence, he has to prove that he was challenged and had a real apprehension of threat in his mind about being attacked by the deceased or someone supporting him, and that they were wielding dangerous weapons, which they could use against him.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 193 - Giving and fabricating false evidence - the Magistrate could / should not have taken cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 193 I.P.C on the basis of the private complaint.

Jileesh v. State of Kerala Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 364, 328, 394 and 201 - Murder - Recovery of the Ornaments - The only evidence that has been projected by the prosecution against the accused is the recovery of the ornaments which purportedly belongs to the deceased. The recovery of the articles belonging to the deceased may in some instances be treated as proof of committing the crime, but, in cases where there is doubt as to whether the ornaments actually belonged to the deceased, it will be difficult to take such a view as well.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 364, 328, 394 and 201 - Murder - Recovery of the Ornaments - The only evidence that has been projected by the prosecution against the accused is the recovery of the ornaments which purportedly belongs to the deceased. The recovery of the articles belonging to the deceased may in some instances be treated as proof of committing the crime, but, in cases where there is doubt as to whether the ornaments actually belonged to the deceased, it will be difficult to take such a view as well.

The Family Courts Act, 1984 - The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Section 13(1)(i) and (ia) - The petition was filed alleging adultery and cruelty - Petition was presented by power of attorney holder - Insofar as there is specific provision under the Code of Civil Procedure enabling a petition to be filed through a power of attorney holder, there is nothing wrong in the Family Court entertaining an application even though it is filed through power of attorney holder. The provisions of CPC squarely applies to matters that are entertained by Family Court as well.

Family Law - Return of Gold Ornaments - Husband not raised any dispute regarding the quantity of gold ornaments - without disputing the actual quantity, he pleads ignorance of the quantity of the gold ornaments - gone to the extent of saying that he does not even know whether those were imitation or gold - It is only a vague denial and not very specific.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A and 406 IPC read with Section 34 - The very filing of the case on the premise that there is matrimonial cruelty demanding dowry by itself may not be a reason to arrive at a conclusion that the wife had committed cruelty.