1. Binding Precedent: Reconsideration of Supreme Court decision

A judgment of the Supreme Court will not be reconsidered unless a subsequent bench believes it has laid down wrong principles of law by ignoring a provision of law or otherwise not following a direct binding precedent.

Jindal Vijayanagar Steel (JSW Steel Ltd.) vs. Jindal Praxair Oxygen Company Ltd. (2006) 134 Comp. Cas 119 (SC)

2. Bankers obligation towards joint account holders

Parties to a joint account are not automatically authorized to pledge each others credit. A banker should not lend money to the parties to a joint account, either by means of an overdraft or in any other way, without obtaining from each of the parties an undertaking to be severally as well as jointly liable to pay the loan.

A fixed deposit in the joint names of two persons is nothing but a joint account which, as the name itself suggests, is repayable on the expiration of the agreed period.

Anumati vs. Punjab National Bank 2004 (8) SCC 498

3. Consumer Protection Act, sec. 2(1)(g): Deficiency in service on part of builder

The delay in handing over of the possession of a flat to the purchaser and for want of municipal corporation approval it was held that there was deficiency in service on part of the builder company. The purchaser was entitled to refund of earnest money with interest.

Howrah Enclave P. Ltd. and Anr. vs. Durga Venue AIR 2006 (NOC) 1259 (NCC) 2006 (4) ALJ 735

4. Consumer Protection Act, sec. 2(1)(g): Deficiency in service by Airlines Company

The Indian Airlines had increased the air fare without contacting or notifying the enhancement of fares to passengers with advance tickets.

The aforesaid act had caused inconvenience and mental agony to passengers which amounts to deficiency in service and the airlines was liable to pay compensation to the passengers.

Indian Airlines Ltd & Anr. vs. Nripendra Kumar Bhatacharyya AIR 2006 (NOC) 1260 (NCC) 2006 (4) ALJ 740

5. Doctrine of Blue Pencil

It means severance of illegal and void part of a contract and giving effect to the latter which is legal, lawful and otherwise enforceable.

As per the above doctrine if courts can render an unreasonable restraint reasonable by scratching out the offensive portions of the covenant or contract, they should do so and then enforce the remainder.

Beed District Central Co-op. Bank Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra 2006 (8) SCC 514

6. Family Arrangement

A document which is in the nature of a memorandum of family arrangement and which is filed before the Court for its information for mutation of names, is not compulsorily registrable and therefore can be used in the evidence of the family arrangement and is final and binding on the parties. The Hon’ble Court relied on its earlier decision in case of Kale vs. Dy. Director of Consolidation (1976) 3 SCC 119.

Govt. of A.P. & Ors vs. M. Krishnaveni & Ors. 2006 (7) SCC 365

7. Priority of debts

The claim of the secured creditor holding mortgage security in its favour will have priority over the dues of the customs dept. In the present case the liability of the customs Dept.

was subsequent to the execution of the mortgage deed.

Sicom Ltd. vs. UOI & Anr. (2006) 133 Comp. Cas 610 (Bom.)

8. Interest can be granted in respect of amount seized wrongfully even in absence of provisions in the Act for grant of interest

There is no bar upon the courts to grant interest on amounts which have been wrongfully and without any authority of law withheld from a citizen. Absence of provisions cannot prevent the court from exercising its jurisdiction and powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to do justice to the parties and pass an order in equity. The Hon’ble Court relied on decision of apex court in case of Sandvik Asia Ltd vs. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 643 (SC)

S. Parameswaran vs. UOI & Anr. (2006) 133 Comp Cas 568 (Mad.)

9. Subsequent event should be considered by courts: Test laid down

The basic rule is that the rights of the parties should be determined on the basis of the date of institution of the suit or proceeding, however a court of law may take into account

subsequent events inter alia in the following circumstances:.

1. the relief claimed originally has by reason of subsequent change of circumstances become inappropriate; or

2. it is necessary to take notice of subsequent events in order to shortegn litigation; or

3. it is necessary to do so in order to do complete justice between the parties
   
   Kedarnath Agarwal (dead) & Anr. vs. Dhanraji Devi (dead) by lRS & Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 76
   
   The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has followed the above principle in the case of Sushila Shantilal Jhaveri vs. UOI & Anr. (2006) 286 ITR 428 (Bom).

10. A wrong concession on legal question by the advocate may not be binding upon his client

In terms of order 3 Rule 1 of the CPC, a litigant is represented by an advocate. A concession made by such an advocate is binding on the party whom he represents. A person may have a legal right but if the same is waived, enforcement thereof cannot be insisted.

However this is subject to exception if a concession is made on a question of law. A wrong concession on legal question may not be binding upon his client.

BSNL & Ors vs. Subash Chandra Kanchan & Anr. (2006) 8 SCC 275

11. Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – S. 5(1)(a)

A huge sum of money was found at the premises of the appellant, who is an assistant engineer in a search conducted by the CBI. The appellant explained that the amount constituted loans taken from two money lenders and the said entries were found in the books of moneylenders.

However, the moneylenders categorically denied the advances of loan and also said that the entries were mere book entries to accommodate the huge sum of money. In view of the above statement, the money was treated as illegal gratification in the hands of the appellant. The appellant was also found guilty of offences under section 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

R. Jankiraman vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2006] 157 Taxman 234(SC)

12. Succession Act, 1955 – S. 6

The Supreme Court held that so long as the property remains in the hand of the single person, same has to be treated as separate property and, thus, he would be entitled to dispose of the co-parcenary property as his separate property, but if the son is subsequently born to him, it becomes the co-parcenary property and he would acquire an interest therein.

Sheela Devi vs. Lal Chand (2006) 157 Taxman 527(SC)