Allegations Against Registry
In Re: Mohit Chaudhary, Advocate v. Nil
AIR 2017 SC 3826
Hon'ble Jagdish Singh Khehar, CJI,Dr DY Chandrachud,Sanjay Kishan Kaul, JJ
Constitution of India: Art.145 Contempt of Courts Act, 1971: S.14
Advocate-on-Record (AOR), the contemnor made allegations against the Registry for indulging in malpractice of bench hunting to the benefit and serve interest to his client, which were found to be false. The contemnor abused the privilege of being an AOR under the Rules and hence found to be guilty of misconduct. Even after making an unconditional apology, the contemnor would not be permitted to practice as an AOR for a period of one month.
It is the duty of an advocate to put his best case for the litigant before the Court. However, he does not absolve the responsibility as an officer of the Court. It is a dual responsibility. Right of an Advocate-on-Record in the Supreme Court is not an automatic right coming from enrolment at the Bar.
Contempt jurisdiction is not only to protect the reputation of the concerned Judge, but also to protect the fair name of the judiciary and it extends to protect the Registry from false and unfair allegations.
Basis of Calculation
J Vasanthi v. N Ramani Kanthammal
AIR 2017 SC 3813
Hon'ble Dipak Misra, AM Khanwilkar,Mohan M Shantanagoudar, JJ
Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955: S.40
In a suit where the plaintiff is seeking declaration of sale deeds as invalid, court-fee is payable under Section 40 and not under Section 25. It cannot be decided on the basis of the evidence. Order of the Madras High Court, that the plaintiff denied execution of the sale deeds and hence court-fee payable would be under Section 25(d) and not under Section 40 of the TN Court Fees and Suit Valuations Act, was erroneous and reversed.
2016 (4) MadLJ 375, Reversed
Compromise Decree
Subash Mohapatra v. Kamala Mohapatra
AIR 2017 (NOC) 819 (Ori)
Hon'ble Dr AK Rath, J
Civil Procedure Code, 1908: O.23, Rr.3-A, 3 Proviso, Explanation
Setting aside of a compromise decree on account of fraud falls within the ambit of Rule 3-A of Order 23 of CPC. Separate suit is not required, and the Decree can be set aside under Order 23, Rule 3.
AIR 2015 SC 706, 1975 (I) CWR 52, Held, No longer good law in view of CPC Amendment of 1976
Enforcement of Security Interest
State Bank of India, Mumbai v. Rajesh Khetan
AIR 2017 Pat 141
Hon'ble Hemant Gupta, Acting CJ, Sudhir Singh, J
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002: S.13(2) Transfer of Property Act, 1882: S.65-A
Where the rent agreement is unregistered, created before the agreement between the borrower and the Bank and there is non-disclosure of tenancy by the borrower at the time of availing loan, also no proof of delivery of possession or payment of rent creates a doubt about genuineness of the rent agreement, then if the Bank takes possession of the mortgaged collateral flats of borrower, the Applicant cannot
CWJC No. 12826 of 2016, Dt.31.08.2016 (Pat), Reversed
Appointment of Arbitrator
TRF Limited v. Energo Engineering Projects Limited
AIR 2017 SC 3889
Hon'ble Dipak Misra, AM Khanwilkar, Mohan M Shantanagoudar, JJ
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: S.11(6)
A person disqualified to act as an arbitrator cannot nominate another arbitrator.
Determination of Age
Lok Nath Pandey v. State of Uttar Pradesh
AIR 2017 SC 3866
Hon'ble Ranjan Gogoi, L Nageswara Rao, Navin Sinha, JJ
Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000: S.68(1)
There were two different dates of birth of the accused in two different schools. Date of birth in the earlier school was entered on the declaration of the parents and in the second school on his own. The accused declared different dates of birth to obtain a PAN card in his own declaration. Earlier Matriculation certificate should prevail under the relevant Rules. The accused cannot be declared as a juvenile.
CRLA No.3456 of 2011, Dt.25.09-2014 (All), Reversed
