1. Deficiency in service – Builder : Consumer Protection Act
Builder failing to allot property to complainant despite having contractual obligation and transferring project to another company without any valid reason. Majority amount of consideration already paid to builders. Even after lapse of many years, builder failing to make redevelopment of property. Act of builder amounting to deficiency in service. Builder liable to pay compensation to complainants.
M/s. Fortune Infrastructure (now known as M/s. Hicon Infrastructure) and another v. Trevor D’Lima and others. AIR 2018 Supreme Court 2975.
2. Customary Laws – Oral gift – Deceased father during his lifetime orally gifting land in favour of son to exclusion of daughters – Oral gift permissible under customs governing parties
In support of the finding that the oral gift is permissible, learned single has placed reliance on the Full Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of “Ghulam Ahmad Sofi v. Mohd. Sidiq Dareel and others” AIR 1974 J&K 59 and also on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Hafeeza Bibi and others v. Shaikh Farid (dead) by LRs and others” reported in (2011) 5 SCC 654. Legal position vis-à-vis oral gift has been correctly appreciated i.e. oral gift under Muslim Personal Law is permissible, therefore, view regarding oral gift taken by the revisional authority (Financial Commissioner) that it is not permissible has been rightly negated.
Mst. Rafiqa and others v. Mohammad Maqbool Bhat and Others. AIR 2018 Jammu and Kashmir 98
3. Suit for injunction – By unregistered public trust – Is maintainable – Suit cannot be thrown out for want of registration of trust. M. P. Public Trust Act
Any trust in order to protect its properties from being alienated, transferred or demolished, can approach the Civil Court for obtaining the temporary injunction because u/s. 26 of the Act, the Registrar, Public Trust is not having any jurisdiction to grant the interim protection. Under section 26 of the Act, Registrar of Public Trust can only direct the working trustees to approach the Civil Court to obtain the relief, that too after notice to the non-applicants. In order to get the interim protection in urgency, the civil suit seeking permanent injunction as well temporary injunction is a suit is certainly maintainable. If there is any dispute about the registration of the trust, Civil Court can direct trust to get it registered or preliminary issue can be framed on this controversy as to whether the trust is a registered trust or not, but the entire suit cannot be thrown out for want of registration.
Shri Vaishnav Sahayak Trust v. Kailash Chandra and others. AIR 2018 Madhya Pradesh 160.
4. Gift deed – Adjudication as to validity of gift deed – Powers of Consolidation Officer – Consolidation Officer has no authority to declare gift deed as void : Transfer of Property Act, Sec. 122
The facts, in brief, is that one Daroga Rai is said to have executed a deed of gift in favour of Anuplal Rai, the father of the petitioners on 7-5-1975. On the basis of the aforesaid gift deed, Anuplal Rai filed petition before Consolidation Officer, patepur to get his name entered in the record of rights during the consolidation proceeding, but the Consolidation Officer rejected the petition of Anuplal Rai and his legal heirs holding that the gift deed is void.
Held that the aforesaid deed of gift cannot be said to be a void document unless the same is declared by the competent civil court having jurisdiction to declare a deed of gift as void and ignore it.
Shivjee Rai and others v. Joint Director Of Consolidatio, Muzaffarpur and others. AIR 2018 PATNA 137.
5. Maxims – ‘Generalia Specialibus Non-Derogan’ – Where statute contains both general as well as specific provision – Later must prevail
Rule 8 of the Preconception and Pre Natal Diagnostic Techniques Rules of 1996 prescribes procedure for renewal of registration in normal course or it can be said that it is a general provision regarding renewal of registration, however, with the insertion of Rule 18-A (4)(ii), the legislature has made a specific provision or carved out an exception to the general rule, directing the appropriate authorities including State, Districts and Sub-districts not to accept the applications for fresh registration or renewal of registration of those applicants against whom, case is pending in any court for violation of the provision of the Act of 1994 and Rules of 1996. With the insertion of Rule 18-A (4)(ii) in the statute book, a classification is created among existing ultrasound clinics firstly, where a criminal case is pending and secondly, where the other irregularities in compliance of the Act of 1994 and the Rules of 1996 exist. As statute contains both a general as well as specific provision the later must prevail and therefore Genetic clinics, Laboratories against whom case is pending for violation of Act or Rules are not entitled to renewal in view of specific bar under R.18-A. They cannot claim disposal of application for renewal of registration as per
R. 8 of Rules.
Dr. Pramod Inderjeet Singh Bedi v. State of Rajasthan and others. AIR 2018 Rajasthan 100.
6. Expression ‘Ordinarily resides’ do not connote past residence
Expression ‘Ordinarily resides’ do not connote past residence. Ordinarily, an adverb qualifying verb ‘resides’ takes its natural and common meaning that an intention to live there for certain number of years, though not permanently, in connection with one’s occupation or employment. In case of school going child, ordinary place of residence is that place where it goes to school and lives with its parents, but this meaning cannot be fastened if child is studying in boarding school, its ordinary place of residence in such a situation is place where its parents reside. Residence connotes living in one’s house, whether own or rented. If one lives at a place, it obviously implies a meaning that there must be an intention to live at that particular place treating that place as his place of residence, and it may also be in connection with one’s business, employment, etc.
Dr. Vishal Khakhandaki v. Smt. Dr. Ashwini khakhandaki. AIR 2016 (NOC) 687(Kar.)