1. Hindu widow – Right to property – Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Interest in property devolving on widow under the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 was limited interest. After coming into effect Hindu Succession Act (1956) widow would become full owner of property held by her as limited owner after death of her husband.
Gurudayalsing Mehersing Bindra (since deceased), through Legal Representatives and Ors. v. Basant Singh Mehersingh Bindra (since deceased) through his Legal Representatives and Ors. AIR 2015 Bombay 15
2. Eviction – Ground of sub letting: Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947
Comparison of section 13(1)(e) before and after the amendment by Maharashtra Act 17 of 1973 shows that after amendment, the scope of sec. 13(1) (e) is enlarged. After the amendment of sec. 13(1)(e), the landlord can obtain decree against the tenant on the ground that the tenant after the date of commencement of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control (Amendment) Act, 1973 has unlawfully given on licence the whole or part of the premises.
Alankar Private Ltd., Mumbai vs. Cricket Club of India Ltd., Mumbai AIR 2015 (NOC) 48 (Bom.)
3. Order in review Petition modifying earlier decree – Fresh decree passed – Both appeal and cross appeal are maintainable against that decree. Civil Procedure Code, 1908
An order of Court rejecting an application for review is not appealable but if a fresh decree is passed in the review petition by modifying the earlier decree, an appeal as well as cross appeal are maintainable against the fresh decree passed in the review petition. Cross appeal required to be filed within 30 days from date of service of notice.
Lairenmayum Rashmandal Singh vs. Khwairakpam Jayentakumar Singh (dead) by LRS and Others AIR 2014 Manipur 51
4. Suit for Pre-emption – Impleadment of party – Suit found to be barred by limitation: Acceptance of application, not proper. – Civil Procedure Code, 1908, 01. R.10
Pre-emptor must come with clear facts in his plaint, so that he may lead his evidence accordingly and may neither improve his case during the trial, nor may make departure therefrom. Applicant in instant case was claiming his rights as pre-emptor with assertion that he was having a better pre-emptory right vis-à-vis the present plaintiff, therefore, he shall be added as a plaintiff in the event of acceptance of his application. Consequent thereto he would be bringing additional facts on record, which were, not otherwise part of the plaint. It shall be an abuse of the process, if he be permitted to do so after losing his right to file a suit. Subordinate court while arriving at the conclusion that no limitation was prescribed for filing an application under O. 1, R. 10 of Code, failed to appreciate that in the instant matter the application preferred was having a nature of filing a suit for pre-emption. The application as such was not an application simpliciter to join as a party to the proceedings, but to have a decree of possession that could have been availed by way of filing a suit for possession by claiming pre-emption. Such a suit admittedly would have been barred by limitation, if would have been filed on the day the application under O. 1, R. 10 of Code was filed. The court on that day had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit being barred by limitation. The subordinate court, on acceptance of the application, had assumed the jurisdiction that it lost earlier. The Jurisdictional error, thus, was apparent. Acceptance of application thus was not proper.
Hari Singh v. Padmawati Arts Creation P. Ltd. & Ors. AIR 2014 Rajasthan 186
5. Land acquisition – Allotment of Alternate land:
Clause in scheme, providing that in the case of ownership of acquired land of a partnership firm allotment of land is to be made to individual partners in accordance with their shares defined in the Partnership Deed and not providing for separate allotment to co-shares of land this is not discriminatory. Clause in scheme should be interpreted is consonance with the understanding thereof by the respondents who have made the said scheme and are responsible for implementation thereof.
Prem Raj v. Land and Building Department & Ors. AIR 2014 Delhi 198
6. Reference to arbitration – Objection – Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996
Having provided for resolution of disputes through arbitration, parties cannot be permitted to avoid arbitration, without satisfying the court that it will be just and in the interest of all the parties not to proceed with the arbitration. Section 5 provides that the court shall not intervene in the arbitration process except in accordance with the provisions contained in Part I of the Arbitration Act. This policy of least interference in arbitration proceedings recognizes the general principle that the function of courts in matters relating to arbitration is to support arbitration process. A conjoint reading of sec. 5 and section 16 makes it clear that all matters including the issue as to whether the main contract was void/voidable can be referred to arbitration. Otherwise, it would be a handy tool available to the unscrupulous parties to avoid arbitration, by raising the bogey of the underlying contract being void. Therefore, whenever a plea is taken to avoid arbitration on the ground that the underlying contract is void, the Court is required to ascertain the true nature of the defence. Undoubtedly, in cases, where the court can come to a conclusion that the contract is void without receiving any evidence, it would be justified in declining reference to arbitration but such cases would be few and isolated. However, it would not be possible to shut out arbitration even in cases where the defence taken is that the contract is voidable. In exercising powers under sec. 11(6) of the Arbitration Act, the Court has to keep in view the provisions contained in sec. 8 of the Arbitration Act, which provides that a reference to arbitration shall be made if a party applies not later than when submitting his first statement on the substance of the dispute. In contrast, Sec. 45 of the aforesaid Act permits the court to decline reference to arbitration in case the court finds that the agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.
Swiss Timing Limited v. Organising Committee, Commonwealth Games 2010, Delhi AIR 2014 SC 3723
Ajay R. Singh