1. Delay in pronouncement of Judgments Guidelines framed by Court
   
   Held

In order to avoid inordinate and unexplained delay in pronouncement of the judgment or order the Hon’ble Bombay High Court at Goa framed the following Guidelines and directions which is as under:

1. All Courts should arrange their roaster in such a manner that they should be able to deliver judgment/order in any matter at the soonest possible.
    

2. Where final arguments are heard in a matter, judgment should be pronounced within a period of three months from the date of conclusion of the arguments.
    

3. In Miscellaneous Application and/or all other matters, order shall not be delayed beyond a period of two months from the date of conclusion of arguments.
    

4. Whenever judgment/order is reserved, the judgment/order when delivered should bear the date on which the judgment/order was reserved and date on which it is delivered.
    

5. Directions contained in clauses 4 and 5 above shall be subject to any statutory provisions, if any, providing for a different period such as Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005; wherein Consumer Forum is required to pass the order invariably within fifteen days of the conslusion of the arguments as per clause 7 thereof.
    

6. Any judicial officer, failing to comply with directions at Sr. Nos. 4 and/or 5 above shall report to the Registrar, High Court of Bombay at Goa every such matter where there is a failure with reasons for non-delivery of such order/judgment. The same will form part of their personal file.
    

7. In case of Government officers discharging judicial/quasi-judicial functions, such report shall be made to the Chief Secretary of Goa and the same will form part of their personal records.
    

8. The Judicial officers concerned shall also be liable for disciplinary action by the High Court and the State Government as the case may be, for their persistent failure to comply with these directions.
    

9. It is common knowledge that most of the quasi-judicial authorities communicate the decision to the parties after reserving the order. This practice should be discontinued forthwith. Every judgment/order should be pronounced in open Court after notifying the parties the date of the order.
    

10. Once the judgment/order is pronounced, the certified copy should be made available to the parties, if applied for, not later than 7 days and not later than 2 days if the copy is applied for on urgent basis.
    
    Pradeep K. R. Sangodker vs. State of Goa & Anr. 2007 (1) AIR Bom R 80

2. Interpretation of beneficial Circulars
   
   Held
   
   The Hon’ble Apex Court relying on the decision of Commissioner of Central Excise vs. Mysore Electricals Inds. Ltd. (2007) 204 ELT 517 held that beneficial circulars has to be applied retrospectively while an oppressive circular has to be applied prospectively. Thus when the circular is against the assessee, they have rightly to claim enforcement of the same prospectively.
   
   Suchitra Components Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise (2007) 8 RC 204 (SC)
    

3. Interpretation of Document : Lease or licence
   
   If an interest in immovable property, entitling the transferees to enjoyment, is created, it is a ‘lease’; if permission to use land without right to exclusive possession is alone granted, a ‘licence’ is the legal result.
   
   Further obtaining of an electricity connection or to run a factory in the licensed premises would again not be decisive to come to the conclusion that the transaction between the parties was of a lease in the given set of circumstances. A licensee may be entitled to obtain electricity connection, water connection and other facilities. After all, licensee also enjoys the possession, he uses and occupancies the premises and to derive better benefit have better use, if he takes certain steps for proper and appropriate enjoyment then it cannot be said that the transaction which was originally a licence between the parties is to be held to be a transaction of lease. Exclusive possession is not the sole criteria to come to the conclusion that the transaction between the parties is that of a licensee. It means that the fact of exclusive possession is to be considered in its true perspective but it is not to be taken as exclusive and absolute fact to hold that such transaction is a lease transaction.
   
   Gujriben Wd/d Chimanlal Bhukhandas & Ors vs. Kantilal Uttamram Chevli AIR 2007 Gujarat 18
    

4. Precedent : Judicial discipline requires that judgement rendered by a co-ordinate Bench should be followed by another co-ordinate Bench
   
   Judicial discipline requires that co-ordinate bench judgment and observations are binding on another bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction and cannot be ignored unless they are per incuriam.
   
   It is well settled that if a Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction disagrees with another Bench of co-ordinate jurisdiction whether on the basis of different arguments or otherwise, on a question of law, it is appropriate that the matter be referred to a larger bench for resolution of the issue rather than to leave two conflicting judgments to operate creating confusion.
   
   There should be certainty of law, further judicial decorum and judicial procedure must be respected at all costs.
   
   Ashok Organics Inds. Ltd. vs. Dena Bank & Ors. (2007) 135 Comp. Cas 203 (Bom)
    

5. Professional misconduct : Any negligence in performance of duties or errors of judgment in discharging of such duties cannot constitute misconduct unless ill-motive is established
   
   Failure to rise to the expected level of efficiency in discharging professional duties cannot be regarded as misconduct treating such failure as negligent act in the conduct of the professional duties.
   
   Misconduct arises from ill-motive and mere acts of negligence, innocent mistake or errors of judgment do not constitute the misconduct. Even if there is any negligence in performance of duties or errors of judgment in discharging of such duties, the same cannot constitute misconduct unless ill motive in the aforesaid acts are established.
   
   Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. Somnath Basu AIR 2007 Calcutta 29
    

6. Life Insurance claim: Consumer Protection Act – S. 2(1)(g)
   
   The LIC had repudiated the claim of wife of the deceased on the ground that the deceased (husband) had provided incorrect and false information.
   
   It was held that insurance company had seven long months after issuing the policy to cross check the facts and figures given in the proposal form which they had not done. Medical examiner of LIC had signed the form. In view of the above facts. Insurance company was liable to settle the claim.
   
   LIC of India vs. K. Purushothama AIR 2007 (DOC) 100 = 2006 (3) CPR 74 (NC)
    

7. Revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain questions regarding validity of decree or investigation of tiles: CPC S. 9
   
   Entry made in revenue records as per the decree. The decree can be challenged in Civil Court, revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to entertain questions regarding validity of decree or investigation of title of parties to proceedings.
   
   Doddarangamma vs. The Dy. Commissioner, Hassan District & Ors. AIR 2007 (NOC) 262 (Kar) = 2007 (1) AIR Kar. R. 210
    

8. Recovery of loan by Banks could be done only through legal means and not by force
   
   The Hon’ble Apex Court deprecated the bank practice of hiring recovery agents who are muscelemen for recovery of loans. The Courts observed that banks should resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of vehicles in cases where the borrower have committed default in payment of the instalments
   
   The court also observed that banks provide inadequate information on the credit card application, loan application, advertisements or even while meeting the bankers in person in respect of lending rates and hidden charges.
   
   Manager ICICI Bank Ltd. vs. Prakash Kaur & Ors. (2007) 136 Comp Cas 327 (SC)