Sahayata & Sahayata

In the landmark judgment of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 571, a three-judge bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices R.F. Nariman, S. Ravindra Bhat, and V. Ramasubramanian dealt with the critical issue of the admissibility of electronic records under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This case involved a reference to reconsider the interpretation of Section 65B(4) and the conflicting judgments in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer (2014) and Shafhi Mohammad v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2018). The key point in contention was whether a certificate under Section 65B(4) is mandatory for the admissibility of electronic records, or if it could be dispensed with in the interest of justice. The Court ruled that the certificate is indeed a condition precedent to the admissibility of electronic records, clarifying the scope and requirement of such a certificate, and issuing general directions regarding the handling and preservation of elec...

Detailed Analysis and Summary of the Judgment: Yogesh Goyanka Vs. Govind & Ors. [Civil Appeal No(s). 7305 of 2024 arising out of SLP (C) No(s). 10005 of 2022] Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Justice Vikram Nath Date: July 10, 2024 Background: The case concerns a dispute over the impleadment of a transferee pendente lite (a purchaser of property during the pendency of litigation) in a civil suit. The appellant, Yogesh Goyanka, along with other respondents, purchased a piece of land (the 'Subject Land') in Hinduan City, Rajasthan, from Respondent No. 21. The sale was completed through a registered sale deed (RSD) dated September 28, 2018, despite the knowledge that there were ongoing legal disputes regarding the land. The original plaintiffs (Respondent Nos. 1-17) had earlier sold the land to Respondent Nos. 18-20, who then sold it to Respondent No. 21. The plaintiffs later filed a suit challenging the validity of the sale deeds and soug...

Case Overview: Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: R. V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 2001 Parties: Petitioner: Anathula Sudhakar (Defendant in the original suit) Respondent: P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) represented by legal representatives Background: The suit was originally filed by Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy, who claimed ownership of two sites (110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards) in Matwada, Warangal town. They alleged that the defendant interfered with their possession when they began construction on the sites in 1978, leading them to file a suit for a permanent injunction. The defendant, Anathula Sudhakar, claimed that he had purchased the entire suit property (300 sq. yards) from K.V. Damodar Rao (brother of the plaintiffs' vendor, Rukminibai) under a registered sale deed in 1977 and that the property was mutated in his name in municipal records. Trial Court and Lower Courts: Trial Court: The suit was decreed in favor of...

Case Overview: The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Modula India vs Kamakshya Singh Deo , dealt with the consequences of striking out the defense of a tenant under Section 17(4) of the West Bengal Premises Tenancy Act, 1956. The primary issue was whether a tenant, whose defense had been struck out for failing to deposit rent as required by the court, could still cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses and argue against the plaintiff’s case. Judgment Summary: The Court held that even if the defense of a tenant is struck out under Section 17(4), the tenant is not entirely barred from participating in the proceedings. Specifically, the tenant retains the right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses and make legal arguments, although the tenant cannot present any evidence of their own. The Court emphasized that this approach ensures that the plaintiff's evidence is thoroughly tested, as it is a well-established principle that no oral testimony can be considered satisfactory...

In the case of Smt. Shukla Malhotra & Ors. vs M/S Dee Pee Kagajudyog Pvt. Ltd. (10 August 2001), the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice J.D. Kapoor, addressed the issue of a defendant's right to cross-examine witnesses after their defense has been struck off. The court examined the extent to which a defendant can participate in the proceedings following such a sanction. Relevant Provisions: Section 15(7) of the Delhi Rent Control Act: This section allows for the striking off of a tenant's defense if they fail to comply with a court order to deposit rent. The court noted that a similar provision applied in this case, even though it involved a broader civil context. Key Points: Limited Right to Cross-Examine: Even after the defense is struck off, the defendant retains a limited right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses. However, this right is confined to pointing out the falsity or weakness in the plaintiff's case. The defendant is not allowed to use cross-...

In the case Sudir Engineering Company vs Nitco Roadways Ltd. , presided over by Justice R.C. Lahoti on March 23, 1995, the Delhi High Court addressed an important procedural aspect of judicial proceedings: the marking of documents as exhibits. The judgment examined whether the act of marking a document as an exhibit in court equates to proving the document. The plaintiff presented a report from a Notary Public as evidence, and the court was requested to mark it as an exhibit. The defendant’s counsel objected, arguing that the document had not yet been proven and should not be marked as an exhibit. This raised a broader issue regarding the practice of marking documents as exhibits before they are formally proven in court. Justice Lahoti clarified that merely marking a document as an exhibit does not imply its proof. The judgment highlighted three distinct stages a document passes through in court: (1) filing of the document, (2) admission of the document into evidence, and (...

Summary: In the case Chattar Singh Matharoo vs. Ashwani Mudgil (CS (OS) No. 576/06), dated September 16, 2015, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi addressed the issue of proving a Will when it is part of a series of documents related to the transfer of property title. The Court, referring to the earlier judgment in Ramesh Chand vs. Suresh Chand & Anr. (2012 (188) DLT 538), observed in paragraph 6 of the judgment that when a Will is among several documents executed to transfer the title of a suit property, it does not need to be classically proved as required in succession cases under the Indian Succession Act. This observation highlights that the proof of a Will in the context of property disputes, where it is one of several documents, is distinct from the stringent requirements typically applied in cases involving the succession of property. The Court recognized that in property disputes, the broader context of document execution and the transfer process takes precedence over the cl...

In the case Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. , the Supreme Court of India, on February 8, 2021, quashed the FIR filed against the in-laws of the complainant under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 498A, which pertains to cruelty against a woman by her husband or his relatives. The judgment, delivered by Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Krishna Murari, addressed the growing concern over the misuse of Section 498A IPC, particularly the tendency to implicate distant relatives of the husband with general and non-specific allegations in matrimonial disputes. The Court observed that the incorporation of Section 498A IPC was intended to protect women from cruelty within marriage; however, it has increasingly been misused as a tool to settle personal scores. In this case, the allegations made against the in-laws were found to be general, vague, and lacking specificity. The Court emphasized that subjecting the accused to a...

In cases where a person issues multiple cheques that subsequently bounce, the court can legally try a single complaint covering all those cheques. This position is supported by the case  Tiruchandur Murugan Spinning Mills Pvt. Ltd. vs. Madan Lal Ram Kumar Cotton and General Merchants  [2001 (1) KLJ 360]. In this case, it was held that a single complaint can be filed in respect of more than one dishonored cheque issued by the same drawer. The rationale behind this decision is based on the principle of judicial efficiency and convenience. Since the issue of dishonor arises from a common transaction or course of dealing between the parties, the court allows the complaints to be consolidated and tried together. This avoids multiplicity of litigation and expedites the legal process. This ruling simplifies the procedural aspect for complainants, who can address multiple cheque dishonor incidents under a unified legal action rather than filing separate complaints for each cheque.

In a cheque bounce scenario, when the bank returns a cheque with the remark “Refer to Drawer,” it signifies that the cheque has been dishonored. Typically, this happens because the drawer’s (the person who issued the cheque) account does not have sufficient funds to cover the cheque amount. Since banks are legally bound by confidentiality under banking secrecy laws, they avoid directly stating the reason for the dishonor (like "insufficient funds") and instead use this more neutral phrase. The phrase “Refer to Drawer” essentially directs the payee (the person in whose favor the cheque was drawn) to contact the drawer for clarification or resolution of the issue. In many cases, the underlying reason is insufficient funds in the drawer’s account, which is a violation that can be prosecuted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881. Legal Implications: Section 138 of the NI Act:  If a cheque bounces due to insufficient funds, the payee can initiate legal pro...

Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel vs. Hitesh Mahendrabhai Patel & Anr. Court : Supreme Court of India Citation : Criminal Appeal No. 1497 of 2022 Date of Judgment : October 11, 2022 Judges : Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., and Hima Kohli, J. Legal Context : Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). Key Facts : The appellant, Dashrathbhai Trikambhai Patel, issued a statutory notice under Section 138 of the NI Act to the respondent, alleging the dishonour of a cheque worth ₹20 lakhs, issued by the respondent to discharge a debt. The respondent admitted to making part payments towards the debt before the cheque was encashed but denied that the full amount was due when the cheque was presented. Legal Issues : Whether a dishonoured cheque, which does not represent the full enforceable debt at the time of encashment due to part payments, can attract liability under Section 138 of the NI Act. Whether a notice under Section 138 demanding the full cheque amount, without ac...

Supreme Court Upholds Discretion of Calcutta High Court Division Bench in Allowing Late Filing of Written Statement by Respondent Summary: In the case of PIC Departmentals Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sreeleathers Pvt. Ltd. , the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal challenging the judgment of the Calcutta High Court's Division Bench, which had allowed the respondent, Sreeleathers Pvt. Ltd., to file a written statement in a suit that had been pending since 1999. The controversy arose when the respondent's signboard allegedly obstructed a hoarding put up by the appellant, leading to a long-standing legal battle. The main issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Division Bench of the High Court was correct in permitting the late filing of the written statement, despite procedural rules and an earlier judgment from the High Court disallowing such delays. The Court, however, emphasized that procedural rules should not overshadow substantive justice. Given the confusion caused by the High Court...

The terms "identical" and "distinct" in the context of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) refer to the nature of the cause of action in a legal suit. Understanding these terms is crucial in determining whether subsequent suits are barred under Order II Rule 2 of the CPC. Identical Cause of Action: A cause of action is considered "identical" if the facts and circumstances that give rise to the plaintiff's right to sue are the same in both the original and subsequent suits. This means that the claim in the subsequent suit should have been included in the original suit as it arises from the same transaction or occurrence. Example: If a tenant fails to pay rent and also continues to occupy the premises unlawfully, and the landlord files a suit for recovery of rent without including a claim for possession, both claims arise from the same cause of action — the tenant's breach of tenancy terms. Hence, the cause of action is identical. Distinct Cause of Ac...

The Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950 enacted? a) 1945 b) 1950 c) 1960 d) 1970 What does "excise duty" mean under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950? a) A tax on imports b) A tax on exports c) A duty on excisable articles manufactured or produced in Rajasthan d) A duty on services Which section of the Act defines "beer"? a) Section 2(1) b) Section 2(2) c) Section 2(4) d) Section 2(6) What is the maximum punishment for unlawful import, export, transport, manufacture, or possession of excisable articles under the Act? a) 3 months imprisonment and fine b) 1 year imprisonment and fine c) 3 years imprisonment and fine d) 5 years imprisonment and fine Which authority is empowered to declare what shall be deemed to be "liquor" under the Act? a) Central Government b) State Government c) District Magistrate d) Excise Commissioner Licensing and Regulation Who is responsible for granting licences for the manufacture, sale, or possession of excisable articles under the Rajasthan...

General Provisions of the Act In which year was The Probation of Offenders Act enacted? a) 1947 b) 1958 c) 1960 d) 1975 The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, extends to which parts of India? a) The whole of India b) Only Union Territories c) Only to rural areas d) Only to urban areas Under which section does the Act provide for the release of offenders after due admonition? a) Section 2 b) Section 3 c) Section 4 d) Section 5 Which section of the Act allows the court to release certain offenders on probation of good conduct? a) Section 3 b) Section 4 c) Section 5 d) Section 6 The term "probation officer" is defined in which section of The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958? a) Section 2 b) Section 4 c) Section 8 d) Section 10 Specific Provisions and Applications Which section of the Act restricts imprisonment for offenders under twenty-one years of age? a) Section 4 b) Section 6 c) Section 8 d) Section 10 Under Section 4 of the Act, what is the maximum period for which an offend...

General Questions on the Act The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was enacted in which year? a) 1978 b) 1989 c) 1999 d) 2001 The Act is applicable to which regions? a) Only to the Scheduled Areas b) The whole of India c) Only to rural areas d) Only to urban areas Which chapter of the Act deals with the offences of atrocities? a) Chapter I b) Chapter II c) Chapter III d) Chapter IV What is the minimum punishment prescribed under the Act for offences committed under Section 3? a) Three months b) Six months c) One year d) Five years Which section of the Act prescribes the punishment for public servants who willfully neglect their duties? a) Section 4 b) Section 3 c) Section 10 d) Section 18 Specific Offences and Penalties For which of the following acts is a person punishable under the Act? a) Forcibly dispossessing a member of a Scheduled Caste from his land b) Forcing a member of a Scheduled Caste to eat or drink obnoxious substances c) Both a and...

 which year was The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act enacted? a) 2000 b) 2010 c) 2015 d) 2020 The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, extends to which parts of India? a) The whole of India b) Only Union Territories c) Only to rural areas d) Only to urban areas Under which section does the Act provide for the constitution of the Juvenile Justice Board? a) Section 4 b) Section 5 c) Section 6 d) Section 7 Which section of the Act defines the term "child in conflict with law"? a) Section 2(11) b) Section 2(12) c) Section 2(13) d) Section 2(14) Which chapter of the Act deals with the procedure in relation to children in conflict with law? a) Chapter III b) Chapter IV c) Chapter V d) Chapter VI Juvenile Justice Board and Procedures What is the minimum experience required for a social worker to be a member of the Juvenile Justice Board? a) 3 years b) 5 years c) 7 years d) 10 years Under which section can a child in conflict...