-
Supreme Court Of India
NOOR MOHAMMED v. KHURRAM PASHA
Hon'ble Judge(s):
Uday Umesh Lalit,
S. Ravindra Bhat,
Sudhanshu Dhulia
D.O.D : 02/08/2022
Appeal Allowed
...Read JudgmentNegotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) , S.143A(5), S.138— Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.357— Interim compensation- Failure to deposit- Effect- Compensation amount can be recovered as if it is fine- Accused cannot be fastened with any other disability including denial of right to cross-examine witness examined on behalf of complainant
-
Supreme Court Of India
Raghavan Sasikumar v. Parameswaran Nadar Sathyananadhan Nadar Kanakottu Padippura Veedu Hon'ble Judge(s):
M. R. Shah,
B. V. Nagarathna
D.O.D : 01/08/2022
Appeal Allowed
...Read JudgmentSpecific Relief Act (47 of 1963) , S.5, S.34— Recovery of possession - Putting up the boundary wall in suit property - Prayer for - In earlier round of litigation, predecessor-in-title of plaintiffs held entitled to suit land to the extent of 2 acres and 35 cents - To that extent only, plaintiffs can protect their possession by putting up the boundary wall - Commissioner's report suggesting that plaintiffs were in possession of 2 acres and 77 cents - However, possession beyond 2 acres and 35 cents was not only the unauthorised possession but also contrary to earlier judgment and decree - Moreover, in a suit filed by plaintiffs for putting up a boundary wall, the High Court in a second appeal could not have given findings that defendants were entitled only to 10 cents - Order of High Court allowing plaintiffs to put up the boundary wall beyond 2 acres and 35 cents, set aside.
Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , S.100, O.26 R.9— (Paras45678)
-
Supreme Court Of India
Sunita Palita v. Panchami Stone Quarry Hon'ble Judge(s):
Indira Banerjee,
J. K. Maheshwari
D.O.D : 01/08/2022
Appeal Allowed
...Read JudgmentNegotiable Instruments Act (26 of 1881) , S.138, S.141— Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.482— Dishonour of cheque - Quashing of proceedings - Applicants are independent, non-executive Directors of accused, Company and in no way responsible for day-to-day affairs of Company - Merely being a Director of company not sufficient to make person liable under S.141 of NI Act - None of applicants were Managing Director or Joint Managing Director of accused Company - Nor were they signatories of cheque which was dishonoured - Proceedings, quashed.
-
Supreme Court Of India
Asset Reconstruction Company (India) Limited v. Tulip Star Hotels Limited Hon'ble Judge(s):
Indira Banerjee,
J. K. Maheshwari
D.O.D : 01/08/2022
Appeal Allowed
(A) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016) , S.7— Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , S.18— Corporate insolvency resolution process - Limitation for filing application - Application for insolvency resolution would not be barred by limitation, on ground that it was filed beyond three years from declaration of loan account of Debtor as NPA - In case acknowledgement of debt is done by Debtor before expiry of limitation period, it would get extended by further period of three years.
(B) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016) , S.7— Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , S.18— Corporate insolvency resolution process - Limitation for filing application - Entries in Books of Account/Balance sheet of company can be treated as acknowledgement of liability in respect of debt payable to financial creditor within meaning of S. 18.
(C) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016) , S.7— Insolvency and Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules (2016) , R.4— Corporate insolvency resolution process - Financial creditor is required to apply in prescribed for initiation of CIRP - There is no scope for elaborate pleadings - Thus, application under S. 7 in prescribed form, cannot be compared with plaint in suit, and cannot be judged by same standards, as plaint in suit, or any other pleadings in Court of law.
Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.6 R.1, O.7 R.1— (Paras4976)
(D) Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , S.18— Extension of limitation - Effect of acknowledgement in writing - Essential ingredients - Enumerated
S. 18 of the Limitation Act speaks of an Acknowledgment inwriting of liability, signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed. Even if the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, evidence might be given of the time when it was signed. The explanation clarifies that an acknowledgment may be sufficient even though it is accompanied by refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy or is coupled with claim to set off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right. 'Signed' is to be construed to mean signed personally or by an authorised agent.
(E) Constitution of India , Art.141— Precedents - A judgment is precedent for issue of law that is raised and decided and not observations made in facts of any particular case.
...Read Judgment(F) Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (31 of 2016) , S.7, S.9— Corporate insolvency resolution process - Limitation for filing application is three years from the date of accrual of right to sue, that is, date of default.
Limitation Act (36 of 1963) , S.18— (Para69)
-
Supreme Court Of India
Eih Limited v. Nadia A Virji Hon'ble Judge(s):
M. R. Shah,
B. V. Nagarathna
D.O.D : 01/08/2022
Appeal Dismissed
(A) Kolkata Municipal Corporation Act (59 of 1980) , S.230, S.231— West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (37 of 1997) , S.3(f)(i), S.5(8)— Apportionment of property tax - As per provision of Act, 1997, obligation to pay half of property tax and surcharge would be upon tenant - Merely because such tax apportioned can be recovered as tax, it cannot become part of rent of tenanted premises.
Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882) , S.106—
In the instant case, landlord inducted tenant in respect of a showroom. Under the Tenancy Agreement, the liability to pay the taxes including surcharge and water tax/fees was upon the tenant. Thereafter suit for eviction filed. As per landlord, the total rent payable by the tenant inclusive of monthly rent and taxes would exceed the ceiling limit of Rs.10,000/- p.m., specified in S. 3(f)(i) of the Act 1997 for commercial premises, hence the Act 1997 would not be applicable and therefore he terminated the tenancy by issuing notice u/S. 106 of T.P. Act.Held, Act, 1997 would be applicable. Merely because the obligation to pay half of the property tax and surcharge would be upon the tenant as per S. 230 of the Act 1980 and the tenant is obliged to pay his share of municipal tax as an occupier of the premises u/S. 5(8) of the Act 1997 and merely because for the purpose of recovery of the tax due from the tenant, such tax apportioned can be recovered as rent, such tax apportioned (half of the amount of the property tax and surcharge) cannot become part of the rent of the premises which is tenanted. For that purpose, the terms and conditions mentioned in the tenancy agreement /lease agreement are required to be considered.
...Read Judgment(B) Civil P.C. (5 of 1908) , O.7 R.11— West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act (37 of 1997) , S.3(f)(i), S.5(8)— Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882) , S.106— Rejection of plaint - Eviction suit filed invoking S. 106 of T.P. Act, claiming that Act, 1997 would not be applicable - Court held that monthly rent cannot be said to be more than ten thousand rupees, hence Act, 1997 would be applicable - In view of such facts civil suit filed by invoking S. 106 of TP Act is impliedly barred - Rejection of plaint, proper.
Prev
Prev Next