|
1. Bankers lien: Bank can
recover outstanding amount against firm from all or any of partners
As per sections 25 and 13(b)
of the Partnership Act, partner is always liable for partnership debt unless
there is an implied or express restriction to the contrary.
Section 171 of the Contract
Act provides for a general bankers lien. The banker can look to his general
lien as a protection against loss on loan. The deposits and securities are
held to be species of goods over which lien may be exercised.
In view the provisions of
Partnership Act particularly sections 25 and 13(b), all partners are jointly
and severally bound to discharge the liability of a firm and bank could
recover the outstanding amount against the firm from any partner and it could
not lie in the mouth of a partner that he is not liable to discharge
liabilities of the firm but is liable only to the extent of his share and lien
could not be created against his securities.
J & K Bank Ltd vs. Abdul
Samad Chaloo. AIR 2008 (J & K) 1
2. Correction of mistake in
entry on date of birth in passport. Passport Act Sec. 10.
To correct a mistake in entry
on date of birth in passport the individual has to approach the competent
authority who had issued passport. The concerned competent authority has power
to make necessary amendments in the passport and there is no need for
declaratory order from Civil Court.
Siddhiqui Suriya Bano vs.
Regional Passport Officer AIR 2008 (NOC) 263 (AP)
3. Denial of right to
co-sharer to enjoy joint family property. Criminal proceedings cannot be under
taken, remedy available under civil law
The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana
High Court held that right of a co-sharer to enjoy the joint family property
is a civil right. Such a right, if denied by the other co-sharer for one
reason or the other, must be enforced by taking recourse to the remedies
available under the civil laws. Criminal proceedings, cannot be taken recourse
to for enforcing such a civil right.
Rajinder Singh Katoch vs.
Chandigarh Administration & Ors AIR 2008 SC 178
4. Deficiency in rendering
‘Medical Services’: Consumer Protection Act
The ECG of the patient was
not normal and it was found mild Ischemia. Subsequently the patient died due
to cardiac arrest. It was duty of doctor to advise patient in writing to
consult cardiologist as well as to reduce smoking and drinking. Failure to
advice the patient amounts to deficiency in
service. Doctor held liable to pay compensation of 5 lakhs.
Smt. Indrani Bhattacharjee
vs. Chief Medical Officer & Ors. AIR 2008 (NOC) 101 (NCC) – 2007(5) ALJ 735
5. Deficiency in service by
Airlines: Consumer Protection Act 2(1)(g)
Loss caused to the consumer
due to pilferage or theft from baggage which was opened in presence of airline
authorities and they were found to be tampared. Evidence clearly showed that
airlines staff had tampared with the baggage.
It was held that airlines was
guilty of deficiency in services and liable to pay compensation.
Indian Airlines Ltd vs. Smt.
Prakrithi Shetty AIR 2008( NOC) 102 (NCC)
6. Deficiency in Service by
‘Bank’ : Consumer Protection Act Sec. 2(1)(g)
Amount deposited by a
customer in PPF account in excess of ceiling prescribed in the scheme. The
Bank refused to pay interest on the excess deposits made in PPF account.
The Hon’ble Commission, Delhi
held that once bank accepted the deposit made in excess of ceiling prescribed,
it would be liable to pay interest on such deposit. Non payment of interest
would amount to deficiency in service by the bank.
State Bank of India vs. B.V.
Ramana Murthy AIR 2008 NOC 394 (NCC)
7. Mother can claim
maintenance against her son : Sec. 125 of Cr. P.C.
The Hon’ble Court relying on
the decision in case of Mahendrakumar Ramrao Gaikwad vs. Golbhai Ramrao
Gaikwad and Anr. 2000(2) Mh. L. J. 378 (Bom) held that the son cannot be
absolve from his own responsibility to maintain his mother even though the
husband may be alive, son is one of those persons from whom a woman can claim
maintenance u/s. 125 of Cr. P.C.
The mother would be entitled
to claim maintenance from the son under section 125 of Cr. P.C. irrespective
of the fact that the husband is alive.
Rafuddin vs. Smt. Salecha Khataon AIR 2008 NOC 776 (BOM)
8. Right of Child in womb in
joint family property: Hindu law
A child in the womb is
entitled to for a share in coparcenary property of an undivided Hindu joint
family. The child is entitled for a share in the joint family property when
born alive and not otherwise. On behalf of the child in the womb no partition
suit is maintainable.
M.S. Subbukrishna & Ors etc.
vs. Smt. Parvathi & Anr. etc. 2007 (6) AIR Kar R. 169
9. Karta of huf can enter in
to contract for mortgage of undivided share of his minor son for legal necessity
The property belonging to a
joint family is ordinarily managed by the father or other senior member for
the time being of the family. The manager of a joint Hindu family is called
the karta. So long as the members of a family remain undivided, the senior
member of the family is entitled to manage the family property. The karta or
manager has the power to contract debts for family purpose and family
business. A joint Hindu family may have no business at all, and yet debts may
be contracted by the manager for a joint family purpose. Such debts are
binding on other members. Besides the power to contract debts for the family
business, the manager has the power of making contracts, giving receipts and
compromising or discharging claims ordinarily incidental to the business. The
power of the manager of a Joint Hindu Family to alienate the joint family
property is analogous to that of a manager for an infant heir. The manger of a
joint Hindu family has the power to alienate for value, joint Hindu family
property, so as to bind the interest of both adults and minors in the
property, provided that the alienation is made for legal necessity for the
benefit of the estate.
Rajat Pangaria vs. State Bank
of Bikaner and Jaipur & Ors. (2008) 141 Comp Cas 323 (DRAT) (Delhi)
10. Unfair trade practice by
car manufacturer : Consumer Protection Act. Sections 2(1)(R) & 2(1)(g)
The consumer purchased a
Mercedez Benz a luxuriour car: There was one manufacturing defect pointed out.
Which required repeated repairs after its purchase. It was held that consumer
was entitled to get replacement or refund of purchase price of car. Non
replacement of vehicle would tantamount to unfair trade practice.
M/s. Controls & Switchgear
Company Ltd. vs. M/s. Diamberchrysher India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. AIR 2008 (NOC)
385 (NCC).
|