1. Banking Services – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – S. 2(1)(g)

Hire purchase agreement, default in payment of installment by hire purchaser. Repossession of vehicle by financier bank by use of force by engaging musclemen is impermissible

HDFC Bank Ltd, New Delhi vs. Balwinder Singh AIR 2009 (NOC) 2311 (NCC)

2. Companies Act – Winding up – Meaning of the word “Debt” – Section 433

For the purpose of section 433 of the Act –Failure to pay agreed interest on principal amount resulting from supply of goods – Such interest would amount to “Debt” within the meaning of section 433.

Vijay Industries vs. NATL

3. Contempt

Apology offered at time when court was going to impose punishment, it ceases to be an apology. Apology is not a weapon of defence to purge guilty of their offence.

C. Elumalai & Ors vs. A.G.L. Irudayaraj & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 2214

4. Eviction – Change of user – East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 – S. 11

Landlord cannot permit a tenant to use the premises which is situated in a residential area for commercial purposes. Tenant liable to be evicted:

Nand Kishore vs. Yashpal Singh AIR 2009 SC 2406

5. Interested witness – Evidence Act – S. 3

Merely because the eye witnesses are family members, their evidence cannot per se be discarded, relationship is not a factor to affect creditability of witness.

Joginder Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 2009 SC 2263

6. Interest is not penalty – Grant of interest on decretal amount – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S. 34

Railway Tribunals is bound by principle of natural justice. Grant of interest on decretal amount u/s. 34 of CPC is based on principle of natural justice. Therefore, Railway Tribunal should award interest on determined sum from date of application till deposit at the rate of a bank. Interest is not a penalty but normal accretion of capital. Depriving award holder of same would be against the principle of natural justice.

Mainura Bibi & Ors vs. UOI & Ors AIR 2009 Calcutta 214

7. Nominee – Co-operative Societies Act

– S. 30

Nomination by a member of society is for the purpose of dealing with the society. Nominee does not become ‘owner’ of property after death of member to the exclusion of legal heirs of deceased. So nominee is not competent to enter into ‘Agreement of Sale’ of property to the exclusion of legal heirs.

Ramdas Sattur vs. Rameshchandra Shah AIR 2009 (NOC) 2058 (Bom.)

8. Non Reasoned Order

Application for stay filed by the petitioner was dismissed without a reasoned order. Petition was filed challenging the action of the Authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions under the VAT Act were required to give reasons as any other quasi-judicial Tribunal entrusted with judicial functions. The court held that when an application for stay is moved, all authorities exercising quasi-judicial functions under the VAT Act have to give reasons as any other quasi-judicial Tribunal entrusted with judicial functions. In the instant case, the order communicated to the parties clearly disclosed that no reasons for dismissal of application for stay is stated. Order set aside.

ICICI Bank Ltd and Anr. vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. 2009 Vol. 111 (8) Bom. L.R. 3532

9. Power of the Appellate Authority – Over riding effect of SICA Act on other laws – S. 32 of Sick Ind Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985

Assessing Officer imposed interest and penalty for an assessment year which was upheld on appeal with variation in interest. Applicant moved before the BIFR as they became a sick company. BIFR allowed a Rehabilitation Scheme and waived the interest and penalty.Tribunal allowed the waiver but did not accept the Rehabilitation Scheme.

The court held, once the scheme is sanctioned, the provisions of the section shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law. Even if under the Sales Tax Act it was open to charge interest and impose penalty considering scheme as sanctioned, it would not be open to the Authorities including the quasi judicial authorities under the Act to order payment to interest and or penalty which is contrary to the sanctioned scheme. The Appellate Authority clearly acted without jurisdiction in refusing to consider the effect of sec. 32(1) of SICA Act, 1985.

Vadilal Dairy International Ltd vs. State of Mah. 2009 Vol. 111 (8)Bom. L.R.. 3585

10. Power of Superintendence National Commission is not sub-ordinate to High Court – Constitution of India – Art. 227

Power of Superintendence cannot be exercised by High Court under Article 227 over judgment of National Commission. National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission is not subordinate to High Court and also not a Tribunal within territorial jurisdiction of High Court.

Abanti Mallik vs. Prakash Pal & Ors. AIR 2009 Orissa 137

11. Precedent – Constitution of India – Article 141

A precedent is a judicial decision containing a principle, which forms an authoritative element termed as ratio decidendi. An interim order which does not finally and conclusively decide an issue cannot be a precedent.

State of Assam vs. Barak Upatyaka D.U. Karmachari Sanstha AIR 2009 SC 2249

12. Recovery of loan

It is a settled principle of law that a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding can proceed simultaneously. Settlement in civil proceeding for recovery of loan not of much relevance in subsequent criminal proceeding involving same matter. Bank is entitled to recover the amount of loan given to the debtor.

Smt. Rumi Dhar vs. State of West Bengal & Anr. AIR 2009 SC 2195

13. Refund of stamp duty – Limitation

Application for refund to be made within prescribed period of Six month.

K.T. Abdul Salam vs. State of Kerala & Ors. AIR 2009 (NOC) 2451 (Ker.)

14. Registration Act – Immovable Property

– S. 17

Gift Deed regarding immovable property –Registration compulsory irrespective of value of property.

Naranji Bhimji Family Trust vs. Sub-Divisional Officer, Ramtek AIR 2009 (NOC) 1934 (Bom.)

15. Registration Act – Tenancy – S. 17

Non-registration of tenancy agreement. – Effect of – Even though the document could not be admitted as evidence, it can be relied upon to prove possession of the sub-tenant.

Kanavayalil Rajan vs. K.K. Muhammed AIR 2009 (NOC) 1855 (Ker.)

Technologies Ltd. AIR 2009 SC 1695

16. Rejection of plaint – Void contract – Copyrights Act Civil Court not prohibited from entertaining the suit – Civil Procedure Code Order 7 – Rule 11

Even if Memorandum of Understanding is void illegal yet there is no law which prohibits institution of suits and taking of its cognizance. Court to consider the fact, evidence and the law to find out if the contract between the parties is enforceable or not. Nothing prohibits the Civil Court from entertaining such a suit. Even if a suit is instituted on a void contract or a contract discovered to be void a party receiving advantage will have to restore it. A party to void contract is entitled to institute a suit for enforcement of the contract and in the alternative to pray for refund of the money.

Govind Govardhandas Daga and Anr. vs. Field Mining and Ispat Ltd 2009 Vol. 111 (8) Bom.L.R. 3524

There is distinction between ‘literary work’ and ‘dramatic work’. Copyright in respect of performance of ‘dance’ would not come within ‘literary work’ but would amount to ‘dramatic work’.

Academy of General Education, Manipal vs. B. Malini Mallya AIR 2009 SC 1982