18 August, 2014
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
For the Appellant :- Mr. S.K. Pipat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjiv Pandit, Advocate.
Lillu and (deceased) represented by his LRs - Appellant
Ram Kishan - Respondents
For the Respondents :- Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary,
N.K. Kapoor, J. - This is plaintiff's regular second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge whereby the Court having come to the conclusion that plaintiff too has right/interest in the suit property merely decreed the claim of the plaintiff to get the land partitioned and to recover the share which earlier belonged to Ram Kishan his predecessor in-interest.
18 August, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0
16 August, 2014
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Nirmal Singh Kahlon - Appellant
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
S.B. Sinha, J. - Leave granted.
These two appeals involving similar questions of law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
16 August, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
For the Petitioner :- Ranjeet Joshi, Advocate.
Ladu Devi and another - Petitioners
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
For the Complainant :- I.R. Chaudhdary, Ravindra Acharya and O.P. Boob, P.P.
Sunil Kumar Garg, J. - This Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the present petitioners on 27-2-2004 with the prayer that the FIR No. 103/2001 registered at Police Station, Merta Road, District Nagaur qua the petitioners be quashed and further, in the meanwhile, if challan has been filed against the petitioners, the same may be quashed.
14 August, 2014
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
T.T. Antony - Appellant
State of Kerala - Respondents
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J. - Leave is granted in all the special leave petitions.
2. These four appeals arise out of the common judgment of a Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in WA Nos. 2708/1999, 2709/1999, 2710/1999, 8/2000, 52/2000 and 200/2000 dated February 29, 2000. Criminal Appeal No. 689 of 2001 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 1522/2000) is filed by T.T. Antony, Deputy Collector and Executive Magistrate, Kannur; Civil Appeal No. 4066 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 8840/2000) is filed by fourteen police constables; and Criminal Appeal Nos. 690-691 of 2001 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 2724-25/2000 are filed by the State of Kerala. These appeals relate to the same incident and raise common questions of facts and law so they are being dealt with together.
3. The relevant facts, giving rise to these appeals, which have a strong political backdrop, need to be noticed for appreciating the contentions of the parties.
14 August, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT (D.B.)
Iqbal Singh and others - Petitioners
State of Punjab and others - Respondents
For the Respondent No. 1 :- Ms. Nirmaljit Kaur, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab.
For the CBI :- Sh. Rajan Gupta, Advocate.
Hemant Gupta, J. - This order shall dispose of Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 18993 of 2003 and 6907 of 2005 whereby the applicants have sought to be impleaded as respondents in the above-mentioned writ petition and Civil Miscellaneous Nos. 18994 of 2003 and 6908 of 2005 for recall and modification of the order passed on 30.4.2003 allegedly directing the State Government to issue notification for handing over the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter to be referred as "the CBI") with further prayer to set aside the notification dated 2.5.2003 and the First Information Report registered in pursuance of such notification by the CBI.
GUJRAT HIGH COURT
For the Appellant - P.M. Raval, Advocate.
Kantilal Jethalal Gandhi - Appellant
Ghanshyam Ratilal Vyas - Respondent
For the Respondents - S.M. Pandit, Advocate.
A.N. Divecha, J.- The order passed by the learned Civil Judge (S.D.), at Narol on 30th June, 1986 below the application at Exh. 5 in Special Civil Suit No. 43 of 1986 is under challenge in this Appeal from Order. Thereby the learned trial Judge was pleased to reject the present appellant's application for interim injuction and to vacate the ad interim injunction granted earlier.
12 August, 2014
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
For the Appellant :- Gaurav Singal, Advocate.
Natha Singh - Appellant
Mittal Traders - Respondent
Cases Referred :
Madvan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai, (2005) 10 SCC 533
Harjeet Singh v. Amrik Singh, (2005) 12 SCC 270.
H.P. Pyarejan v. Dasappa, 2006(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 646 : AIR 2006 SC 1144.
Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki, 2006(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 561 : 2006 (5) JT (SC) 72 : AIR 2006 SC 1975.
Kanshi Ram v. Rajinder, 1999(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 650 : 2000 (1) CCC 143 (P&H).
Sham Sunder, J. - This appeal, is directed, against the judgment and decree, dated 11-4-2007, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide which, it accepted the appeal of the plaintiff/respondent, and set aside the judgment and decree dated 6-10-2005, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Samana, vide which, it dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts, relevant for the decision of this appeal, are that, Ramesh Chand, the sole proprietor of M/s. Mittal Traders, Patran (plaintiff/respondent), was doing the business of commission agent. It was stated that the defendant/appellant, who had been selling his agricultural produce, at the shop of the plaintiff/respondent, cleared/adjusted his entire previous account, on 17-11-2001, by receiving the balance amount, from the plaintiff/respondent, and signed the entry, in this regard, in his (plaintiff/respondent's) rokan bahi. It was further stated that after adjusting the entire previous account, on 17-11-2001, the defendant/appellant, did not sell his agricultural produce, at the shop of the plaintiff/respondent, in April 2002, and in September/October, 2002. It was further stated that, thereafter, the defendant/appellant, borrowed a sum of Rs. 97,000/- from the plaintiff/respondent, to meet his various domestic needs, making promise, to him that, in future, he would sell his entire agricultural produce, at his (plaintiff/respondent's) shop. It was further stated that, the defendant/appellant, after borrowing the loan amount, in the sum of Rs. 97,000/-, from the plaintiff/respondent, on 25-11-2002, signed the entry, in the rokar bahi, regularly maintained, by the plaintiff/respondent, in the ordinary course of business. It was further stated that, the defendant/appellant, thereafter, neither came, at the shop of the plaintiff/respondent, nor returned the borrowed amount, in the sum of Rs. 97,000/-, nor adjusted the same. The defendant/appellant, was many a time asked, to repay the borrowed amount along with interest, but to no avail. On the final refusal of the defendant/appellant, left with no other alternative, a suit for recovery, was filed.
3. The defendant/appellant, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, he took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the suit of the plaintiff/respondent, was not maintainable. It was further pleaded that, no cause of action accrued, to the plaintiff/respondent, to file the suit. It was further pleaded that, the plaintiff/respondent, had no money lending licence, for running the business of advancing money on loan. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff/respondent, had concealed the material facts, from the Court. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff/respondent, had not come to the Court, with clean hands. It was denied that the defendant/appellant, put signatures, on the rokar, after borrowing a sum of Rs. 97,000/-. It was stated that the plaintiff/respondent, had never issued 'J' forms of agricultural produce, sold by the defendant, at his shop. It was further stated that, when the defendant, had not sold his crop, at the shop of the plaintiff, after 17-11-2001, the question of getting any advance, from him, did not at all arise. It was further stated that, much prior to the aforesaid episode, the defendant stopped selling his agricultural produce, at the shop of the plaintiff. It was further stated that the plaintiff, obtained his (defendant/appellant's) signatures, on account of settlement of account, and, later on, the same might have been used, for fabricating the alleged entry. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong.
4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck :-
- i) Whether plaintiff firm is doing business of Commission Agent of Patran and Ramesh Chand, plaintiff, is its sole proprietor ? OPP
- ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 1,027,28/- along with interest from the defendant ? OPP
- iii) Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form ? OPD
- iv) Whether plaintiff has got no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD
- v) Whether plaintiff has no money lending licence, if so, its effect ? OPD
- vi) Whether plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the Court and has not come to the Court with clean hands, if so, its effect ? OPD
- vii) Relief.
6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the plaintiff/respondent, which was accepted, by the Court of Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 11-4-2007.
7. Feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendant/appellant.
8. I have heard the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully.
9. The Counsel for the defendant/appellant, submitted that, the First Appellate Court, was wrong, in coming to the conclusion that solely on the basis of the bahi entries, liability, with regard to the recovery of amount, in question, could be fastened upon the defendant/appellant. He further submitted that, the defendant/appellant, was selling his agricultural produce, at the shop of the plaintiff/respondent, and the accounts were cleared/adjusted, on 17-11-2001. He further submitted that, after the receipt of balance amount by the appellant from the respondent, which was settled, between the parties, on 17-11-2001, the entry was signed, by the parties. He further submitted that, thereafter, the defendant/appellant, did not sell any agricultural produce, at the shop of the plaintiff/respondent, and, it could not be imagined, that the plaintiff/respondent, would pay a sum of Rupees 97,000/-, to the defendant/appellant, on 25-11-2002 as loan. He further submitted that the judgment and the decree of the Appellate Court, being illegal, were liable to be set aside.
10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, in my considered opinion, the appeal deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In Madvan Nair v. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10 SCC 533, Harjeet Singh v. Amrik Singh (2005) 12 SCC 270, H.P. Pyarejan v. Dasappa, 2006(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 646 : 2006 (2) JT (SC) 228 : AIR 2006 SC 1144 and Gurdev Kaur v. Kaki, 2006(2) R.C.R.(Civil) 561 : 2006 (5) JT (SC) 72 : AIR 2006 SC 1975, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous, as the legislative intention, was very clear, that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a "third trial on facts" or "one more dice in the gamble." It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the judgments of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. Admittedly, Natha Singh, defendant appellant, was earlier, selling his agricultural produce, at the shop of the plaintiff/respondent. On 17-11-2001, accounts, were settled, and whatever amount, was due, at that time, to the appellant, against the respondent, was paid, to him, and an entry, in this regard, was made, in the bahi which was signed. No doubt, thereafter, for sometime, the defendant/appellant, did not sell the agricultural produce, at the shop of the plaintiff/respondent. Ramesh Chand, plaintiff/respondent, himself appeared, in the witness box, as P.W. 1, and deposed that, on 25-11-2002, the defendant/appellant, borrowed a sum of Rs. 97,000/-. He brought the original books of account, maintained by him, in the regular course of business, and proved P3, the entry, in the bahi, showing that a sum of Rs. 97,000/- was borrowed, by the defendant/appellant, from the plaintiff/respondent, on 25-11-2002. P3/1, is the Punjabi version thereof. Even the original khata, for the year 2002-2003, was brought, by the plaintiff/respondent, and the relevant entry of the same is P4, and the Punjabi translation thereof, is P4/1. He deposed that Natha Singh, defendant/appellant, signed the entry after receipt of Rs. 97,000/-. Jiwan Kumar alias Jagjiwan Kumar, also deposed, with regard to the borrowing of Rupees 97,000/-, by the defendant/appellant, from the plaintiff/respondent, on 25-11-2002, and entries, referred to above, in the account books. He also deposed, that Natha Singh signed the entry, in the account books, at the time of obtaining a sum of Rs. 97,000/-, as loan. Not only this, Navdeep Gupta, Hand Writing and Finger Prints Expert, was produced, as P.W. 2, by the plaintiff/respondent, who compared the questioned signatures of Natha Singh, defendant/appellant, against the entry, in the original account books, and compared the same, with his specimen signatures. He came to the conclusion, that the questioned signatures, were written by the same person, who wrote the specimen signatures. The entries in the account books, therefore, stood duly corroborated, through the evidence of Ramesh Kumar, P.W. 1, the plaintiff/respondent, Jiwan Kumar alias Jagjiwan Kumar, P.W. 3, and Navdeep Gupta, Hand Writing and Finger Prints Expert, P.W. 2. It, therefore, could not be said that the liability, was fastened upon the plaintiff/respondent, regarding the recovery of the amount, only on the basis of uncorroborated entries in the account books. In Kanshi Ram v. Rajinder, 1999(4) R.C.R.(Civil) 650 : 2000 (1) CCC 143 (P&H), it was held that, if the entries, in the books of account, duly maintained, in the ordinary course of business, are corroborated, through other evidence, the same, are admissible, under Section 34 of the Evidence Act. The principle of law, laid down, in the aforesaid case, is fully applicable, to the facts of the instant case. No doubt, the defendant/appellant, denied that, he borrowed the loan, in question. He also denied that, he signed any entry, in the account books. However, he did not muster enough courage, to appear, as his own witness, to deny the factum of obtaining loan and signing the entry. The Â findings of fact, recorded by the First Appellate Court, that the P> defendant/appellant, borrowed a sum of Rs. 97,000/-, on 25-11-2002, from the plaintiff/respondent; signed the entry in that regard in the account books of the plaintiff; that the entries in the account books were duly corroborated through the evidence of the plaintiff/respondent, Navdeep Gupta, Hand Writing and Finger Prints Expert, and Jiwan Kumar alias Jagjiwan Kumar, P.W. 3; and that the liability, could be fastened upon the defendant/appellant, for the recovery of the amount, on the basis of the evidence, produced by the plaintiff/respondent, being based, on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, suffer from no illegality, or perversity, and warrant no interference. The submission of the Counsel for the defendant/appellant, being without merit, must fail, and same stands rejected. The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, as liable to be upheld.
11. No question of law, much less substantial, has arisen, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court.
12. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed.
12 August, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
For the Appellant :- Mr. T.N. Singh and Mr. V.K. Singh, Advocates.
Madan Mohan Singh and Others - Appellants
Rajni Kant and Others - Respondents
For the Respondent :- Mr. Abhay Kumar, Advocate.
Cases Referred :
1. Babloo Pasi v. State of Jharkhand, 2008(4) R.C.R.(Criminal) 756 : 2008(6) R.A.J. 95 : (2008)13 SCC 133.
2. Birad Mal Singhvi v. Anand Purohit, AIR 1988 SC 1796.
3. Brij Mohan Singh v. Priya Brat Narain Sinha, AIR 1965 SC 282.
4. Dayaram v. Dawalatshah, 1971 Apex Criminal 681 : AIR 1971 SC 681.
5. Desh Raj v. Bodh Raj, 2008(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 212 : 2007(6) R.A.J. 537 : AIR 2008 SC 632.
6. Gokalchand v. Parvin Kumar, AIR 1952 SC 231.
7. Harpal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361.
8. Lata Singh v. State of U.P., 2006(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 870 : 2006(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 738 : 2006(2) Apex Criminal 670 : AIR 2006 SC 2522.
9. Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan, AIR 1929 PC 135.
10. Mohd. Ikram Hussain v. The State of U.P., AIR 1964 SC 1625.
11. Ram Murti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1970 SC 1029.
12. Ram Prasad Sharma v. State of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 326.
13. Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh @Chhotu Singh, 2010(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 244 : 2009(6) R.A.J. 661 : (2009)6 SCC 681.
14. Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni, (1996)7 SCC 681.
15. Ravinder Singh Gorkhi v. State of U.P., 2006(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 156 : 2006(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 45 : 2006(2) Apex Criminal 333 : (2006)5 SCC 584.
16. S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal, 2010(2) R.C.R.(Criminal) 793 : (2010)5 SCC 600.
17. S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan @ Andali Padayachi, 1992(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 524 : 1992(2) R.R.R. 381 : (1994)1 SCC 460 : AIR 1992 SC 756.
18. Santenu Mitra v. State of West Bengal AIR 1999 SC 1587.
19. Satpal Singh v. State of Haryana, 2010(3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 777 : 2010(4) R.A.J. 304 : JT 2010(7) SC 500.
20. Sobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy, 2005(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 799 : (2005)2 SCC 244.
21. State of Bihar v. Radha Krishna Singh, AIR 1983 SC 684.
22. State of Punjab v. Mohinder Singh, 2005(2) S.C.T. 401 : AIR 2005 SC 1868.
23. Updesh Kumar v. Prithvi Singh, 2001(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 637 : (2001)2 SCC 524.
24. Vishnu v. State of Maharashtra, 2006(1) R.C.R.(Criminal) 201 : 2006(1) Apex Criminal 41 : (2006)1 SCC 283.
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. - This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14.8.2003 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19334 of 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by which the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the appellants in view of the concurrent findings recorded by the three statutory authorities under the Statute.
11 August, 2014
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
For the Appellant :- Mr. Naunit Lal, Advocate.
Chandradhar Goswami and others - Appellant
Gauhati Bank Ltd. - Respondent
For the Respondent :- Mr. R. Gopalkrishna, Advocate.
Wanchoo, J. - This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree of the Assam High Court and arises in the following circumstances. The Gauhati Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the bank) brought a suit against the appellants for the recovery of Rs. 40,000. Its case was that appellant No. 1 had been dealing with the bank for the needs and business of the family consisting of himself and the other appellants as karta of the family, and in that connection he had an open, mutual and current account with the bank. In that connection moneys were borrowed from the bank and moneys were also paid into the bank
11 August, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0
01 August, 2014
Breaking NewsAdvocates that have provisional permission to practice won't be having #VOTING RIGHT in the elections of State Bar Council till they pass the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) and get permanent Certificate of Practice (COP) ~ Bar Council of India
All India Bar ExaminationGet more information about next dates of AIBE - Click Here
01 August, 2014 by Puneet Batish · 0
As per a recent report published in Times of India, giving respite to those who passed LL.B. degree on or after June 30, 2011 and have enrolled themselves with the State bar Council the bar Council of India has permitted them to appear before the courts as an advocate without clearing the all India by examination, also known as a AIBE. The decision will help several lawyers who were unable to practice becasue they had not taken the BCI exam.