IMPORTANT DECISIONS

 A private - purchaser can get the food article analysed from a public analyst. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 271 (S.C.)

 Ad interim injunction - Oral agreement to sell - Injunction granted restraining defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property or changing the nature and character thereof till the disposal of the suit for specific performance. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 255 (S.C.)

 Additional evidence at appellate stage - Documents sought to be produced formed the very basis of the claim and their consideration was necessary for just decision of the case - Allowed. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 268 (S.C.)

 Dishonour of cheque - Accused cannot be permitted to lead his evidence by way of affidavit. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 228 (S.C.)

 Dishonour of cheque - Documents produced along with the affidavit - Affidavit can contain the formal proof of the enclosed documents - Accused can raise objections - If objections sustained then it is always open to the prosecution to have the concerned witness summoned and get the lacuna in the proof of the documents corrected. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 228 (S.C.)

 Dishonour of cheque - Evidence on affidavits - Cross examination of deponent - Accused cannot insist that deponent should first depose verbally in examination-in-chief what he has already said in the affidavit. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 228 (S.C.)

 Dishonour of cheque - Evidence on affidavits - Excluding inadmissible portion in affidavit - Not necessary to call deponent - Court on objection by accused can deal with the objections in accordance with law. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 228 (S.C.)

 Dismissal in default - Non appearance of counsel - Party not to suffer - Suit restored. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 213 (S.C.)

 Exemplary costs - Payable to respondent when he has entered appearance. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 381 (S.C.)

 Family arrangement - A Deed of Family Settlement seeking to partition joint family properties cannot be relied upon unless signed by all the co-sharers - However, a party when takes advantage of it cannot contend that deed of family settlement is invalid. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 322 (S.C.)

 Interest on delayed payment - Not to be denied when amount is withheld wrongly and without any justification. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 208 (S.C.)

 Investigation - can be handed over to CBI even after filing of the charge sheet. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 343 (S.C.)

 Last day of limitation a Sunday or a holiday - It shall be considered to have been done within limitation if it is done on the next day on which the Court or office opens. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 224 (S.C.)

 Murder - Death sentence - Mere number of persons killed is not by itself a circumstance which justifies the death sentence. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 280 (S.C.)

 Pleadings - Court can strike out any pleading at any stage of the proceedings when it is unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or where the Court is satisfied that the pleadings tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or which is otherwise considered as an abuse of the court. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 197 (S.C.)

 Rent & Eviction - Landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from non residential building on ground of personal necessity.(Haryana Urban 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments Con (S.C.)rol of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, S.13). 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 262 (S.C.)

SUBJECT INDEX

Arbitration Act, 1940

 Arbitration Act, 1940, S.29, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.31(7), Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.34 - Arbitration award - Interest on delayed payment - Arbitrator has the competence, jurisdiction and power to award interest for the period from the date of award to date of payment as also for pre-reference, pendente lite and post award - Interest so awarded should be reasonable and agreement between the parties should not prohibit grant of such interest. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 208 (S.C.)

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996

 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.11 - Arbitrator - Appointment - After completion of contract full and final payment received without any protest - Dispute raised after two years - High Court appointed arbitrator - Appointment set aside - No dispute existed between parties as contractor having received the final payment without protest had waived his right as per the conditions of contract. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 391 (S.C.)

 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.11 - Arbitrator - Appointment - For appointment of an arbitrator two things must be kept in mind viz.(i) that there exists a dispute between the parties to the agreement and that the dispute is alive; 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments ii) (S.C.)Secondly, an Arbitrator must be appointed as per the terms and conditions of the agreement and as per the need of the dispute. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 391 (S.C.)

 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.14 - Time limit for arbitration proceedings - Arbitration agreement itself providing the procedure for enlargement of time and parties took recourse to it and consented to the enlargement of time by the arbitrator - Held, Court cannot exercise its inherent power in extending the time fixed by the parties in the absence of the consent of either of them. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 247 (S.C.)

 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.14 - Time limit for arbitration proceedings - Time mutually agreed to by the parties - Arbitrator is bound to make and publish the award within time mutually agreed to by the parties, unless the parties consented to further enlargement of time - Condition precedent for enlargement of time depends only on the consent of the parties - If consent is not given by the parties, then the authority of the arbitrator would automatically cease to exist after the expiry of the time limit fixed. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 247 (S.C.)

 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.14, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.151 - Arbitration - Fixation of time limit for conclusion of arbitration proceedings - There is no provision under the Act for the Court to fix a time limit for the conclusion of an arbitration proceeding, but the Court can opt to do so in the exercise of its inherent power on the application of either party. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 247 (S.C.)

 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.31(3) - Arbitration award - Award not an infirmity for lack of detailed reasons when relevant records are not produced and deponents though available for cross examination are not cross examined. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 273 (S.C.)

 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.31(7), Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Undertakings Act, 1993, S.4 - Interest on delayed payment - Delayed payment on completion of contract of supply - Interest on delayed payment claimed - Dispute referred to arbitration - Interest Act, 1993 is a special legislation providing for payment of interest on delayed payments to small scale industries - Held, interest on such delayed payment is governed by Interest Act, 1993 and not by provision of S.31(7) of Arbitration Act, 1996. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 309 (S.C.)

 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.34, Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Undertakings Act, 1993, S.7 - Delayed payment on completion of contract of supply - Interest on delayed payment claimed - Dispute referred to Arbitration - Award in favour of claimant - Corporation challenged such award u/s 34 of the Act - Held, application u/s 34 of Arbitration Act is an appeal for the purpose of S.7 of Interest Act, 1993 which can be made only after depositing 75% of amount of award - Corporation directed to make such deposit in Court where application u/s 34 is pending. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 309 (S.C.)

 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Ss.34 & 36 - Arbitration award - Execution of award - Arbitrator held debtor liable for loan amount - High Court, in execution of award, ordered attachment of several properties of debtor - On objection by third party claiming himself to be the owner of the property - High Court restrained creditor from taking any steps to dispose of the property in execution of award - Supreme Court, in appeal against this order, directed that during the pendency of the proceedings in High Court, no third party rights will be created in the subject matter of dispute. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 227 (S.C.)

Civil Procedure Code, 1908

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.34, Arbitration Act, 1940, S.29, Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, S.31(7) - Interest on delayed payment - If the amount is withheld wrongly and without any justification and there is no embargo or legal hurdle in awarding interest then there cannot be any justifiable reason to deny the same. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 208 (S.C.)

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Ss.35, 35-A, 35-B - Exemplary costs - Levy of exemplary costs on ordinary litigants, as punishment for merely approaching courts and securing an interim order, when there was no fraud, misrepresentation or suppression is unwarranted. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 381 (S.C.)

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Ss.35, 35-A, 35-B - Exemplary costs - Payable to respondent when he has entered appearance - Payable to Legal Services Authority only when respondent has not entered appearance. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 381 (S.C.)

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Ss.35, 35-A, 35-B - Exemplary costs - To be levied when claim is found to be false or vexatious or where a party is found to be guilty of misrepresentation, fraud or suppression of facts. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 381 (S.C.)

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.100 - Second appeal - New plea with regard to question of law can be raised for the first time in second appeal. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 393 (S.C.)

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6.R.16 - Pleadings - Power of Court to strike out - Additional written statement filed - Objection not taken by plaintiff - After about 3 years, plaintiff filed an applciaotn for striking off additional written

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.6.R.17 - Pleadings - Power of Court to strike out - Court can strike out any pleading at any stage of the proceedings when pleadings are considered by Court unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious or where the Court is satisfied that the pleadings tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit or which is otherwise considered as an abuse of the court. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 197 (S.C.)

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.9.R.4 - Dismissal in default - Restoration - Non appearance of counsel at the time of hearing - A party should not suffer for the reason that his counsel has defaulted and moreso when the party is prosecuting the litigation since 1982 diligently and there was no lapse on his part till dismissal for non prosecution - Petition restored to its original file. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 213 (S.C.)

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.22.R.4 - Legal representatives - Can urge all contentions which the deceased could have urged except only those which were personal to the deceased - Legal representatives can set up their own independent title. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 197 (S.C.)

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39.Rr.1, 2 - Ad interim injunction - Oral agreement to sell - Suit for specific performance - Injunction to restrain defendants from changing the nature of suit property - Injunction granted restraining defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property or changing the nature and character thereof till the disposal of the suit for specific performance - Suit to be decided as early as possible but positively within one year. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 255 (S.C.)

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39.Rr.1, 2 - Temporary injunction - Besides basic elements, Court has also to take into consideration the conduct of the parties for grant of injunction. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 322 (S.C.)

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39.Rr.1, 2 - Temporary mandatory injunction - Possession delivered in execution of decree - High Court in revision passed an interim order directing D.H. to redeliver possession to J.D. - As possession is delivered in execution of decree as such there is no question to pass interim mandatory injunction directing D.H. to redeliver possession to J.D. - However, this can be done only when a final order is passed by the High Court in the pending revision petition. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 261 (S.C.)

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39.Rr.1, 2 - Ad interim injunction - Oral agreement to sell - Suit for specific performance - Suit property sold during pendency of suit - Vendees impleaded party to the suit - Restraining such vendees from changing the nature of suit - Ad interim injunction granted restraining defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit property or changing the nature and character thereof till the disposal of the suit - Suit to be decided at the earliest but positively within one year. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 255 (S.C.)

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.39.Rr.1, 2 - Temporary injunction - Failure to prove prima facie case - Interim injunction cannot be granted even if balance of convenience is in his favour or that he will suffer irreparable loss and injury if injunction is not granted. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 358 (S.C.)

 Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.41.R.27 - Additional evidence at appellate stage - Documents sought to be produced formed the very basis of the claim and their consideration was necessary for just decision of the case - Reason for not producing the same at the time of trial was that original plaintiff died during pendency of suit and L.R's were not award of those documents - Additional evidence allowed. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 268 (S.C.)

Constitution of India

 Constitution of India, Art.32, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.173(8) - Investigation can be handed over to CBI even after filing of the charge sheet. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 343 (S.C.)

 Constitution of India, Art.32 - Charge sheet filed - High police officials involved in the crime - Even thereafter investigation can be directed to be done by CBI when Court feels that investigation by police authorities is not in the proper direction. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 343 (S.C.)

 Constitution of India, Articles 226 & 227 - Writ petition against order passed by civil court against which revision is not maintainable - High Court before exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 has to consider whether trial Court committed a jurisdictional error by refusing to exercise its jurisdiction or it was a case of failure on the part of trial Court to exercise the power vested in it or the order under challenge was vitiated by an error of law apparent on the face of the record, or there was violation of the rules of natural justice and further to consider whether there has been substantial failure of justice or manifest injustice caused on account of order passed by trial Court - If High Court is to exercise power under Article 227 then it should take note of the often quoted judgment reported in 2004(2) Apex Court Judgments 221 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments S.C (S.C.)). 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 197 (S.C.)

Easement Act, 1882

 Easement Act, 1882, S.13 - Easement of grant - An easement of grant is a matter of contract between the parties - It may be either express or even by necessary implication - Easement of necessity comes to an end with the termination of necessity - Easement acquired by grant cannot be extinguished. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 364 (S.C.)

 Easement Act, 1882, S.13 - Easement of necessity - Easement right in respect of the pathway - If there exists any other way, there can be no easement of necessity. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 364 (S.C.)

Evidence Act, 1872

 Evidence Act, 1872, S.9 - Test identification parade - When accused is shown to the witness, a test identification parade becomes meaningless. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 304 (S.C.)

Family arrangement

 Family arrangement - A Deed of Family Settlement seeking to partition joint family properties cannot be relied upon unless signed by all the co-sharers - However, a party when takes advantage of it cannot contend that deed of family settlement is invalid. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 322 (S.C.)

 Family arrangement - Required registration but not registered - Held, it will operate as an estoppel against the parties which had taken advantage thereof. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 322 (S.C.)

 Family settlement - May be even oral in which case no registration is necessary - Registration is necessary only if the terms of family arrangement are reduced into writing - However, a memorandum prepared after the family arrangement which had already been made does not require registration. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 322 (S.C.)

General Clauses Act, 1887

 General Clauses Act, 1887, S.10 - Last day of limitation falling on a Sunday or a holiday - It shall be considered to have been done within limitation if it is done on the next day on which the Court or office opens. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 224 (S.C.)

Guardian and Wards Act, 1890

 Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, Ss.7, 9, 12 & 17 - Child - Custody - Merely because the father has love and affection for his children and is not otherwise shown unfit to take care of the children, it cannot be necessarily concluded that welfare of the children will be taken care of once their custody is given to him. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 371 (S.C.)

 Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, Ss.7, 9, 12 & 17 - Child - Custody - Question of custody is distinct from that of guardianship. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 371 (S.C.)

 Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, Ss.7, 9, 12 & 17 - Interim custody - Interests of the children will be duly served if their current residence is not disturbed - Irreparable injury will be caused to the children if they, against their will, are uprooted from their present settings. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 371 (S.C.)

 Guardian and Wards Act, 1890, Ss.7, 9, 12 & 17 - Interim custody - While deciding the question of interim custody, paramount consideration is the welfare of the child. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 371 (S.C.)

Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973

 Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, S.13 - Eviction petition on the ground of personal necessity of son - Death of landlord - Eviction petition does not abate as the requirement of building was for son who presently is the landlord. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 262 (S.C.)

 Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973, S.13 - Landlord can seek eviction of a tenant from non residential building on ground of personal necessity. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 262 (S.C.)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

 Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13-B - Divorce by mutual consent - Petition filed during pendency of proceedings for transfer of divorce petition - Parties living separately for the last more than 4 years - No chance of reconciliation between them - Parties agreed to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent without any coercion or undue influence - Decree for divorce by mutual consent granted. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 218 (S.C.)

Indian Penal Code, 1860

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302 - Murder - Death sentence - Young age of the accused persons - No criminal antecedents - Murder though brutal but not a diabolic murder nor had the murderers acted in depravity of their minds by disfiguring the bodies - Incident must have taken place barely within 10-15 minutes - Cruel acts on the part of the accused do not justify death sentence - Death sentence commuted to life imprisonment - However, accused not to be released unless they complete 25 years of actual imprisonment. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 280 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.366, 368 - Murder reference - High Court can recall the witnesses for confrontation as proceedings before High Court are in the nature of original proceedings and an extended trial. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 280 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.302, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Ss.366, 368 - Murder - Death sentence - Mere number of persons killed is not by itself a circumstance which justifies the death sentence. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 280 (S.C.)

 Indian Penal Code, 1860, S.494 - Ingredients of the offence u/s 494 IPC are : 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments i) (S.C.)he accused must have contracted first marriage; 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments ii) (S.C.)he must have married again; 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments iii (S.C.) the first marriage must be subsisting and 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments iv) (S.C.)the spouse must be living. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 206 (S.C.)

Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Undertakings Act, 1993

 Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Undertakings Act, 1993, S.7, Micro Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006, S.19 - Repeal of old Act - Party claiming benefit of subsequent enactment - New enactment was not in force at the relevant time - Held, provision of subsequent enactment cannot be read into an old enactment which was repealed by such subsequent Act - Benefit of subsequent Act is not available. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 309 (S.C.)

Land Acquisition Act, 1894

 Land Acquisition Act, 1894, S.11-A - Land acquisition - Final award has to be passed within two years from the date of publication of declaration u/s 6 of the Act - In computing period of two years period during which an order of stay operated has to be excluded - If final award is not passed within two years the land would revert back to the land owner because of expiry of the period of two years from the date of declaration or notification. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 274 (S.C.)

Limitation Act, 1963

 Limitation Act, 1963, Art.58 - Suit for declaration - Limitation of three years - Mere existence of an adverse entry in the revenue records does not give rise to cause of action as contemplated under Article 58 of Limitation Act - Right to sue accrues when right asserted in the suit is infringed or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant against whom the suit is instituted. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 243 (S.C.)

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.163-A - Accident - Compensation - In case of fatal accident it is not the multiplier which applies and it is the amount specified in the Second Schedule depending upon the age and income of the deceased which is payable - However, in case of permanent total disability or permanent partial disability the compensation is payable by arriving at by multiplying the annual loss of income by the multiplier applicable to the age of the injured. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 328 (S.C.)

 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 - Accident - Compensation - Death of 22 years boy who was a brilliant student and had graduated in Business Administration from U.K. and while a student he was doing part time job earning an amount of 1,008 pounds 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments Rs. (S.C.)0,000/- p.m.) - At the time of accident in India he was not working - Compensation paid by assessing his monthly income at Rs.18,000/- on notional basis - Held, fair amount of compensation is by assessing his monthly income as Rs.25,000/- p.m. being about 1/3rd of amount which he was receiving in U.K. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 219 (S.C.)

 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 - Accident - Compensation - Future prospects - In the wake of changed societal conditions and global scenario, future prospects may have to be taken into consideration not only having regard to the status of the employee, his educational qualification; his past performance but also other relevant factors, namely - the higher salaries and perks which are being offered by the private companies these days. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 328 (S.C.)

 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 - Accident - Compensation - Grant of compensation is based on law of torts - It is based on the principle of restitution in integrum - This principle provides that a person entitled to damages should, as nearly as possible, get that sum of money which would put him in the same position as he would have been if he had not sustained the wrong. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 328 (S.C.)

 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, S.166 - Death in accident of a young brilliant student of 22 years - Calculation of loss of dependency of the parents - Deduction to be made only 1/3rd from income and not 2/3rd of personal expenses of deceased. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 219 (S.C.)

 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Ss.166, 163-A - Accident - Compensation - Claim filed u/s 166 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments fau (S.C.)t liability) and accordingly compensation worked out - Had the claim been filed u/s 163-A 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments no (S.C.)ault liability) then compensation was payable by applying second schedule - Whether in such a case claimants are entitled to get compensation by applying Second Schedule - As there are divergent judicial views on this point as such matter referred to larger bench. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 328 (S.C.)

 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Ss.166, 163-A - Death in accident of a young brilliant student of 22 years - Father of deceased 51 years of age and working as a doctor in Government Hospital and was to retire after few years - Father not completely dependent upon his son - Considering the age of parents multiplier of 10 applied in the fact situation of the case. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 219 (S.C.)

 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Ss.166, 163, 149, 158(6), Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, R.150 - Accident - Claim petition - Expediting and streamlining the adjudication of motor vehicles claims and disbursement of compensation - Supreme Court giving suggestions/directions to various authorities viz. Police, Claims Tribunals, Insurance Companies and Legislature and Executive for speedy disbursement of claims to road accident victims. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 295 (S.C.)

 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Second Schedule - Accident - Compensation - Multiplier mentioned in the Second Schedule, although in a given case, may be taken to be a guide but the same is not decisive. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 328 (S.C.)

Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

 Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, S.42 - Secret information received by Police Official while on patrol duty - Information passed on to superior officer by wireless - It is a substantial compliance of the provision of S.42 of the Act - Had the police officer not moved right in the earnest, accused would have had an opportunity to remove the contraband and escaped from the arms of police. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 194 (S.C.)

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Ss.138, 143 to 147 - Dishonour of cheque - Provisions of Ss.143 to 147 which came into effect from 6.2.2003 apply to the cases which were pending on the date the provisions came into force. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 228 (S.C.)

 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Ss.138, 143 to 147 - Dishonour of cheque - Ss.143, 144, 145 & 147 expressly depart from and override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the main body of adjective law for criminal trials - The provisions of S.146 similarly depart from the principles of Indian Evidence Act. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 228 (S.C.)

 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Ss.138, 145 - Dishonour of cheque - Accused cannot be permitted to lead his evidence by way of affidavit. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 228 (S.C.)

 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Ss.138, 145(1) & 145(2) - Dishonour of cheque - Documents produced along with the affidavit - Affidavit can contain the formal proof of the enclosed documents - However, if accused raises any objection with regard to the validity or sufficiency of proof of the documents submitted alognwith the affidavit and if the objections are sustained by the Court it is always open to the prosecution to have the concerned witness summoned and get the lacuna in the proof of the documents corrected. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 228 (S.C.)

 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Ss.138, 145(2), Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.296(2) - Dishonour of cheque - Provisions of S.296(2) Cr.P.C. and S.145(2) Negotiable Instruments Act are not identical - Provision of S.296(2) Cr.P.C. deals with the evidence of a formal nature whereas provision of S.145(2) NI Act all evidences including substantive evidence may be given on affidavit - S.296 Cr.P.C. is part of the elaborate procedure of a regular trial under the Code while the whole object of S.145(2) NI Act is to design a much simpler and swifter trial procedure departing from the elaborate and time consuming trial procedure of the Code. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 228 (S.C.)

 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Ss.138, 145(2) - Dishonour of cheque - Evidence on affidavits - In the event an application is made by the accused, Court would be obliged to summon the person giving evidence on affidavit without having any discretion in the matter - Witness can be subjected to cross examination as to the facts stated in the affidavit - However, when the person who has given his evidence on affidavit appears in Court it is not open to the accused to insist that before cross examining him as to the facts stated in the affidavit he must first depose in examination-in-chief and be required to verbally state what is already said in the affidavit. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 228 (S.C.)

 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Ss.138, 145(2) - Dishonour of cheque - Evidence on affidavits - It is not necessary to call the complainant or his witness who has given evidence on affidavit into the witness box for examination-in-chief to get the inadmissible portions in the affidavit excluded from his evidence - In case the complainant's affidavits contain statements that are not admissible in evidence it is always open to the accused to point those out to the court and the court would then surely deal with the objections in accordance with law. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 228 (S.C.)

 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, Ss.138, 147, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.320 - Dishonour of cheque - Offence can be compounded even during pendency of appeal - Petitioner permitted to compound the offence - Conviction and sentence set aside. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 389 (S.C.)

Partnership Act, 1932

 Partnership Act, 1932, S.42(c) - Partnership - Two partners - Death of one partner - Firm stands dissolved despite the existence of a clause in the deed that partnership will continue for 42 years irrespective of the death of any partner - A partnership is a contract between the partners - There cannot be any contract unilaterally without the acceptance by the other partner - There is no legal obligation on L.R's to join partnership as partnership is not a matter of heritable status but purely one of contract. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 393 (S.C.)

 Partnership Act, 1932, Ss.42, 48 - Partnership - Both the partners brining properties into partnership - No intention of partners to treat those properties as the properties of the firm - Partnership firm stood dissolved on death of one partner - Both the partners allowed to take their respective properties. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 393 (S.C.)

Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954

 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, Ss.11, 20 - A private purchaser can get the food article analysed from a public analyst - However, before doing so he has to inform the vendor at the time of purchase that he intends to have the article analysed - Procedure prescribed by S.11(1), 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 2) (S.C.) 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 3) (S.C.)s applicable to such purchase and taking of sample as well. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 271 (S.C.)

 Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954, S.20 - Proviso - Prosecution for an offence under the Act can be instituted by a purchaser only if the report of the public analyst is produced alognwith the complaint. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 271 (S.C.)

Right to Information Act, 2005

 Right to Information Act, 2005, Ss.2(f), 6 - Information - Meaning - A person can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law and is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed, especially in matters pertaining to judicial decisions. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 215 (S.C.)

 S.6 - Information - Judicial orders - Reasons for arriving at a particular decision - No litigant can be allowed to seek information as to why and for what reasons the judge had come to a particular decision or conclusion - A judge is not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him and is not expected to give reasons other than those that have been enumerated in the judgment or order. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 215 (S.C.)

Service

 Service - Disciplinary proceedings - Employee was to suffer reduction to a lower stage in a time scale - In another proceedings employee was to suffer reduction to a lower post - Single Bench of High Court in a writ petition held major penalty as illegal and set aside the same - Division Bench remitted the matter to Single Judge to give separate judgment dealing with each and every issued raised by the parties - Held, employee facing inquiry and Court proceedings for almost twenty five years - Instead of withholding of two increments, three increments be withheld - Only that part of the judgment set aside by which it has been remitted to Single Judge. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 260 (S.C.)

 Service - Probationer - Termination of service - Respondent time and again informed during probation period about his deficiencies and was given ample opportunities to improve - Respondent was not found suitable for confirmation and his service terminated - Held, it is a case of termination simpliciter due to unsuitability and not a case of punishment for misconduct. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 383 (S.C.)

Statute

 Statute - Interpretation - While interpreting a statutory provision, its context and the object should not be lost - When a term appearing in the Statute is clear and unambiguous then only the literal rule of interpretation applies and when meaning of a term is ambiguous then the interpretation that advances the object and purpose of the legislation, shall apply. 2010(1) Apex Court Judgments 309 (S.C.)