1)Whether a guardian can accompany the victim girl while conducting Test Identification parade relating to the offence under POCSO Act.?
Ans :-Delhi High court Guidelines for test identification parade of accused by child witness
The child witness shall be entitled to accompany his parents/guardians or any of his close relatives so as to make the child comfortable before participating for identifying the accused in the Test Identification Parade.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Crl. A. 513/1998
Decided On: 30.05.2014
Rakesh Kumar Vs. State
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Citation: 2014 SCCONLINE 3387,MANU/DE/1387/2014
2) Whether it is necessary to register decree if title was acquired for the first time by adverse possession?
Ans:-17. Documents of which registration is compulsory.(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (l) applies to—
(vi) any decree or order of a Court 29 [except a decree or order expressed to be made on a compromise and comprising immovable property other than that which is the subject-matter of the suit or proceeding]; or
Hence in view of S 17 (2) (vi) of registration Act,it is not necessary to register decree if title by adverse possession was acquired for the first time by decree.
Q.3) A person has committed suicide due to abetment.But he survives.What offence is made out against person abeting suicide?
Ans:108. Abettor.—A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. Explanation 1.—The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act. Explanation 2.—To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused. Illustrations
(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.
(b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder.
Q.4) Tenant has taken plea of standard rent in written statement.He has failed to file application for fixation of standard rent.Hence Court has not fixed standard rent nor interim standard rent.Tenant has deposited rent after ninety days of service of summons of suit. Can it be said that tenant defaulted in payment of rent as he didn't pay rent within ninety days from the date of service of summons?
Ans -It is only in the written statement filed by him, the dispute was raised for the first time as to the standard rent. Notably, the tenant Manilal had never applied for fixation of the standard rent earlier nor within one month of the service of notice had he applied for fixation of the standard rent. As noted earlier, the tenant Manilal did not even send reply notice disputing the standard rent.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 5284 of 2006
Decided On: 12.04.2017
Anil Kumar Dadurao Dhekle Vs. Rukhiben and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Kurian Joseph and R. Banumathi, JJ.
Citation: (2017) 14 SCC 215.
https://www.lawweb.in/2018/03/whether-it-is-permissible-for-tenant-to.html
https://www.lawweb.in/2018/03/whether-it-is-permissible-for-tenant-to.html
Tenant should make application for fixation of standard rent as per S 8 of Maharashtra rent control Act.It is not permissible for tenant to take plea of standard rent in written statement.As per S 15(3) of Maharashtra rent control Act,tenant should deposit standard rent,permitted increases then due together with simple interest on the amount of arrears at fifteen percent per annum within ninety days from the date of service of summons of the suit;and thereafter continue to pay or tenders in court regularly such standard rent and permitted increases till the suit is finally decided and also pays costs of the suit as directed by the court.In the present case,tenant has failed to show that he has complied S 15(3) of Maharashtra rent control Act.Hence he is liable to be evicted.
Q 5) Whether court can issue a warrant of possession of a immovable property which is already attached in execution by another Court ?
S 63 of CPC:- Property attached in execution of decrees of several Courts.—(1) Where property not in the custody of any Court is under attachment in execution of decrees of more Courts than one, the Court which shall receive or realise such property and shall determine any claim thereto and any objection to the attachment thereof shall be the Court of highest grade, or, where there is no difference in grade between such Courts, the Court under whose decree the property was first attached.
(2) Nothing in this section shall be deemed to invalidate any proceeding taken by a Court executing one of such decrees.
This means that if immovable property is already attached in execution of decree,possession warrant can not be executed.
6) When court can order Cancellation of instruments? Whether court can grant compensation on cancellation of instruments?
Central Government Act
Section 31 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963
31. When cancellation may be ordered.—
(1) Any person against whom a written instrument is void or voidable, and who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if left outstanding may cause him serious injury, may sue to have it adjudged void or voidable; and the court may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and cancelled.
(2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), the court shall also send a copy of its decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the instrument contained in his books the fact of its cancellation.
Central Government Act
Section 33 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963
33. Power to require benefit to be restored or compensation to be made when instrument is cancelled or is successfully resisted as being void or voidable.—
(1) On adjudging the cancellation of an instrument, the court may require the party to whom such relief is granted, to restore, so far as may be any benefit which he may have received from the other party and to make any compensation to him which justice may require.
(2) Where a defendant successfully resists any suit on the ground—
(a) that the instrument sought to be enforced against him in the suit is voidable, the court may if the defendant has received any benefit under the instrument from the other party, require him to restore, so far as may be, such benefit to that party or to make compensation for it;
(b) that the agreement sought to be enforced against him in the suit is void by reason of his not having been competent to contract under section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (9 of 1872), the court may, if the defendant has received any benefit under the agreement from the other party, require him to restore, so far as may be, such benefit to that party, to the extent to which he or his estate has benefited thereby.
No comments:
Post a Comment