advocateonline

Constitution of India, Article 226  Contract Act, Section 73  Writ Locus standi Enforcement of contractual obligations  Rights of the petitioner flow from the sub contract agreement entered into between the Petitioner and the Contractor, to which the Authority is not a party. No contractual relationship between the Petitioner and the Authority or any of its instrumentalities EPC Agreement expressly stipulates that it is the Contractor, who shall at all times be responsible and liable for all its obligations under the agreement notwithstanding anything contained in the agreement with its sub-contractor or any other agreement that may be entered into by the Contractor. Petitioner cannot be construed to be ‘a person aggrieved' and thus has no locus to enforce a contractual obligation qua the Authority in respect of the balance 64% work.  [ Paras 11 to 15] Rbk Constructions Private vs  State Of Maharashtra WP 5561/20 18/09/20  [ UJJAL JJ,] [ BOMBAY HIGH COURT ]...

THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT [Before : Rajnish Kumar] Pati Rakhan & Anr. versus Smt. Chandrani Devi Case No. : Second Appeal No. - 144 of 2017 Date of Decision : 03-02-2021 (A) The instant Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court no.9, Sitapur in Misc. Chandrani by means of which the application for condonation of delay in filing appeal has been rejected and the judgment and decree dated 18.07.1987 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge, Sitapur in R.S.No.40 of 1983;Smt.Chandrani Devi Versus Raj Rani and others. The second appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree dated 07.12.2016 passed in Misc. The lower appellate court is directed to reconsider and decide the case afresh in accordance with law and the observations made here-in-above in this judgment (B) The injunction was sought for whole of the property of late Brij Mohan on the ground that one of his daughter Raj Rani had executed a s...

NI ACT Section 138  Appeal against acquittal   Dishonour of cheque  Complainant issued a statutory notice upon accused demanding payment of cheque amount.  When accused has not denied the relationship of lessor and lessee and also according to the lease agreement the accused was liable to pay a sum of 45,000/to the lessee who is the complainant.  As on the date of presentation of the cheque, there was no legally enforceable debt to the extent of the amount shown in the cheque.  Argument of the respondent that there existed no legally enforceable debt rightly accepted by below court.   Appeal dismissed.  [Paras 10, 12 and 13] Sukanya W/O Hanumanthaiah vs Papaiah S/O Doddapapaiah  CRL-A 123/11 24/09/20  [ H.B.PRABHAKARA JJ ] [ KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ]

Motor Vehicles Act, Sections 2 (13) and 166  Obligation of insurance company to indemnify the insured  Fatal accident  Insurance Company contended that another motor-cycle which is vehicle involved in the accident was a stolen vehicle prior to accident and therefore it is not vicariously liable. Held, though the motorcycle involved in the accident was the stolen vehicle, the R.C. book shows the name of the original owner and it is insured with the Insurance Company.  Therefore, an Insurance Company cannot escape from the obligation to indemnify the insured.  [Paras 11 to 15] Tokio General In Com vs Kanchanben  FA 472/14 19/06/19  [ RM.CHAYA JJ ] [ GUJARAT HIGH COURT ]

Sections 302 and 149 IPC  Indian Evidence Act,  Section 3  Acquittal Sustainability of  Perusal of evidence  Testimony of eyewitness unreliable in view of testimony of another witness that everyone reached at spot after her.  When witnesses reached on spot, they found deceased in injured condition.  Entire evidence of so called eye witnesses rendered unreliable, since no medical report produced, though three stitched wounds found on body of deceased.  Eight persons indiscriminately assaulted deceased with lathi but only three injuries found on body.  Manner and place of occurrence not proved.  Acquittal upheld.  [Paras 20, 22 and 24] Ram Rati Devi vs The State Of Bihar  CRL-A 1321/18 01/10/21  [ Dinesh Kumar JJ ] [ PATNA HIGH COURT ]

Section 96 CPC   Summary dismissal of first appeal   Not proper though there is power under Order 41 Rule 11(1) CPC to summary dismissal of the first appeal without issuance of notice to the respondent yet, the court must be slow in exercising the power and if it chooses to do so, it must express its own reason as the appellate forum for summarily rejecting the first appeal.   Since the appellate court has not assessed the merits of the case by reasons of its own, the dismissal of first appeal was not proper. Harijan Vanabhai Devabhai vs  Khoda Gram Panchayat  LPA 513/84 10/06/1993  [ NAINAR SUNDARAM JJ ] [ GUJARAT HIGH COURT ]