Ajay Singh, Advocate

1. Appeal – Re-admission of appeal – Parties could not be made to suffer due to mistakes of their lawyer Permissibility.[Civil P. C. of 1908, 0. 41 R. 19]

   Case was delayed as paper book could not be prepared due to Diwali vacations. Further delay occurred due to unavailability of crucial documents, and appellant’s inability to attend court due to agricultural commitments and illness. Court recognised difficulties in obtaining paper book and submitting documents Parties could not be made to suffer due to mistakes of their lawyer. Therefore, appeal was re-admitted. Shripat Bhaurao Ingale v. Baijabai Bhaurao Ingale (Dead) By L.Rs. and others. AIR 2024 (NOC) 235 (BOM)

2. Arrest of accused – Challenge against – The action of ED in not furnishing a copy of document containing grounds of arrest when accused was arrested: [Prevention of Money Laundering Act of 2003, S.19, Constitution of India Art.22]

   In the instant case, the question for consideration was whether the action of ED in handing over the document containing the grounds of arrest to accused and taking it back after obtaining the endorsement and his signature thereon, as a token of he having read the same, and in not furnishing a copy thereof to him at the time of arrest would render the arrest illegal under S.19 of PMLA. Held, since the accused was informed about the grounds of arrest and he had also put his signature and the endorsement of having been informed on the said document, there was due compliance of the provisions of Section 19 of PMLA and his arrest could neither be said to be volatile of the said provision nor of Art.22. The expression “as soon as may be” contained in S.19 of PMLA is required to be construed as- “as early as possible without avoidable delay” or “within reasonably convenient” or “reasonably requisite” period of time. Since by way of safeguard a duty is cast upon the concerned officer to forward a copy of the order along with the material in his possession to the Adjudicating Authority immediately after the arrest of the person, and to take the person arrested to the concerned court within 24 hours of the arrest, reasonably convenient or reasonably requisite time to inform the arrestee about the grounds of his arrest would be twenty-four hours of the arrest. The person arrested, if he is informed or made aware orally about the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest and is furnished a written communication about the grounds of arrest as soon as may be i.e as early as possible and within reasonably convenient and requisite time of twenty-four hours of his arrest, that would be sufficient compliance of not only S.19 of PMLA but also of Art.22(1) of Constitution. As discernible from judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India and Others AIR Online 2023 SC 809, the very use of word “henceforth” implied that the requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest in writing to the arrested person as soon as after his arrest was not mandatory or obligatory till the date of the said judgment. Non furnishing of grounds of arrest in writing till the date of pronouncement of judgment in Pankaj Bansal case could neither be held to be illegal nor the action of the concerned officer in not furnishing the same in writing could be faulted with. Ram Kishor Arora v. Directorate of Enforcement AIR 2024 SUPREME COURT 220.

3. Arrest – Execution – Arrest and detention of judgment debtor.[Civil P. C. of 1908, S. 51(c), 55]

   Immovable properties of judgment debtor’s companies were under attachment and put up for sale by the Bank . Due to which, earlier execution petition seeking realisation of the decree debt by proceeding against the properties got dismissed . Mere reflection of active status of some of the companies of JD in the website of Registrar of Companies cannot lead to an assumption that he was deriving income from those companies. Moreover, Drug Licences issued to some of the companies of JD were cancelled. JD neither had sufficient means to pay decree debt nor willfully neglected the payment of decree debt. Arrest and detention of JD was set aside. Kuriakose Kavalakkat Cherpanath Kochu v. Johnson. AIR 2024 KERALA 33

4. Dishonour of cheque – Resigned from the post of Directors – Quashing of proceedings. [Negotiable Instruments Act of 1881, S. 138, 141, Criminal P. C. of 1974, S. 482]

   Appellants were arrayed as accused in a complaint filed for dishonour of cheques issued by Company. Appellants had resigned from the post of Directors of Company before the issuance of cheques. Resignations of appellants were not questioned by complainant. Appellants were not responsible for the conduct of business of company at the time of issuance of cheques. Complainant had failed to prove complicity of appellants in the alleged crime. Proceedings against appellants were liable to be quashed. Rajesh Viren Shah v. Redington (India) Limited AIR 2024 SUPREME COURT 1047.

5. Power of Attorney – Execution of sale deed – Quashing of FIR and proceedings. [Criminal P. C. of 1974, S. 482]

   Allegations that property of informant and others was sold to accused by PoA-holder without obtaining the signatures of land-owners. Combined reading of clauses of PoA, showed that holder thereof was authorised to execute deeds, including a sale deed and proceed to register same upon accepting consideration on behalf of the land owners. Dispute was between the land-owners inter-se and/or between them and the PoA-holder. It would be improper to drag the accused into criminal litigation, when he had no role either in the execution of the PoA nor in any misdeed by the PoA-holder in relation to the transaction. Entire consideration was paid by accused to the PoA-holder. More- over, a suit filed by the land-owners prior to the lodging of FIR, for the same cause of action was dismissed in favour of accused where a specific plea to cancel the sale deed stood rejected. FIR and proceedings were liable to be quashed. Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia v. State of Bihar and Another AIR 2024 SUPREME COURT 1071

6. Insurance – Repair of car – Consumer Protection – Investigator’s report and Surveyor had also opined that damage sustained by vehicle does not co-relate with cause of accident as mentioned by petitioner.[Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986), S.21(a)(ii)]

   Petitioner-insurer sought cost of repair of his car from insurer, on account of suffering damage due to accident, which was more than the insured value. As per petitioner, incident occurred, as on the night, an animal came in the way of car and in order to avoid, car hit the pavement and divider of road, turned turtle and stuck with a stationary trolley. Accident as claimed was a very serious one. However, nobody in the vicinity remembered about accident which had taken place on a very busy area. Investigator’s report and Surveyor had also opined that damage sustained by vehicle does not co-relate with cause of accident as mentioned by petitioner. Insurance company was rightly directed to pay a stipulated compensation, while maintaining the costs at Rs.10 lakhs along with 9% interest. Manjeet Singh v. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. and another. AIR 2024 DELHI 69

7. Non-Registration of document – Rejection of plaint – Suit for possession and specific performance on basis of unregistered agreement. [Registration Act, 1908, S. 49, Civil P.C. of 1908, 0.7 R.11]

   Plea that unregistered agreement to sell cannot be produced as evidence of any transaction regarding immovable property. In suit for specific performance, S. 49 of Registration Act admits even an unregistered document affecting immovable property. Suit cannot be rejected outrightly on ground of non-registration of document. Non-affixation of the stamp duty on document. Purpose of Stamp Act is not to punish litigant. One cannot be denied to avail his remedy without even affording an opportunity on basis of technical defect. Provisions of Stamp Act are not to be used as an arm to curtail rights of litigant. Hence, Trial Court would decide whether document is deficient with amount of stamp and afford an opportunity before permitting the document to be adduced in evidence by party relying upon it. Malkiat Singh v. Nitesh Kumar AIR 2024 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 44

8. Registration – Execution of sale deed – Thus as per S. 47 sale deed would operate from the date of its execution – Corrections unilaterally made after execution of sale deed without knowledge and consent of purchaser would have to be ignored [Registration Act of 1908, S.47]

   On plain reading of Section 47, it provides that a registered document shall operate from the time from which it would have commenced to operate if no registration thereof was required. Thus, when a compulsorily registerable document is registered according to the Registration Act, it can operate from a date before the date of its registration. The date of the operation will depend on the nature of the transaction. If, in a given case, a sale deed is executed and the entire agreed consideration is paid on or before execution of the sale deed, after it is registered, it will operate from the date of its execution. The reason is that if its registration was not required, it would have operated from the date of its execution. The Constitution Bench in the case of Ram Saran Lall & Ors. v. Mst. Domini Kuer & Ors., AIR 1961 SC 1747. The Hon Court held that Section 47 of the Registration Act does not deal with the issue when the sale is complete. The Constitution Bench held that Section 47 applies to a document only after it has been registered, and it has nothing to do with the completion of the sale when the instrument is one of sale. It was also held that once a document is registered, it will operate from an earlier date, as provided in Section 47 of the Registration Act. Kanwar Raj Singh (D) TH. LRS. v. Gejo (D) TH.LRS and others AIR 2024 SUPREME COURT 238.

9. Slum rehabilitation scheme – Allotment of flats – Procedure – Private agreements cannot supersede statutory mandates stipulated in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes.[Maharashtra slum areas (improvement Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971), S. 3B]

   Appellant Society claimed entitlement to allotment of flats based on consent terms executed pursuant to the MOU with developer. Civil Suit in which said consent terms were arrived at was at the behest of the developer against individual society members and SRA was not made a party to these proceedings. Circular prescribed allotment procedure, through draw of lots. Private agreements cannot supersede statutory mandates stipulated in Slum Rehabilitation Schemes. SRA has to act in terms of its own policies and circulars without allowing private or contractual interests to prevail over public policy. Slum Rehabilitation Authority was directed to proceed with allotment of flats in accordance with law. Sayunkta Sangarsh Samiti and another v. State of Maharashtra and others. AIR 2024 SUPREME COURT 204.

10. Sale deed – Cancellation of sale deed – Land belongs to Trust revenue record does not confer any title over subjected land.[Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act, 1951, S.14]

    Land belonging to Trust and Sale deed executed without the previous sanctioned of Registrar. Violation of S.14 of Chhattisgarh Public Trust Act and the Rule made therein. Collector had already cancelled sale deed which was executed by Mahant in his capacity as Sarwakara and directed for recording said property in name of Trust. Said order was never challenged by subsequent purchaser and attained finality. Ample opportunity was given to parties. Society was estopped from raising plea that no proper opportunity was not granted to society. Though name of Trust was mutated in the revenue record, it does not give any right to Trust on strength of recording of the names in revenue record, as revenue record does not confer any title over subjected land. Without prior permission from the Register, trust land cannot be alienated. Registrar has exclusive jurisdiction over trust property. Sale deed was executed in violation of Act and Rule made therein. Registrar has only power to cancel entire transaction. Plea that sale deed cannot be cancelled by Registrar as it has to be declared null and void by competent Civil Court only was not tenable. Order cancellation of entire land transaction held proper. Sunder Nagar Grih Nirman Prathmik Sahakari Sanstha Maryadi (A Co-operative Society, Raipur (C.G.) v. State of Chattisgarh. AIR 2024 (NOC) 236 (CHH)

11. Transfer of property – Lease and licence – Difference between [Transfer of property Act of 1882, S.105, Easements Act of 1882, S. 52]

    As per S. 105 of Transfer of property Act, lease is transfer of right to enjoy immovable property for certain period expressly, impliedly or in perpetuity. On the other hand, ‘licence’ as defined u/s. 52 of the Easement Act is a right to do, or continue to do, in or upon immovable property of grantor, something which would, in absence of such right, be unlawful, and such right does not amount to easement or interest in property. The lessee of building/premises, who got exclusive possession coupled with transfer of interest therein, has right to possess and enjoy building/premises; whereas licensee of building, who got mere right of occupation of premises/ building without transfer of any interest therein, does not have such right of absolute possession and enjoyment of building/premises and his right is to do or continue to do specific business or trade only in building/premises for which permission was granted by licensor as occupant of building/premises. C. D. Varghese v. Joseph Mani and others AIR 2024 KERALA 27.

12. Will – Execution of Will – Suspicious circumstances – Will not bearing any date. [Succession Act of 1925, S.63, Evidence Act of 1872, S.68]

    Testator was admitted in hospital for renal failure and hip fracture treatment at time of execution of Will. Doctor treating him was not one of the attesting witnesses . Doctor was not called as a witness to prove soundness of mind of testator. An obscure bequest was made in the Will, in the name of a charitable Trust to be controlled by two Executors who were complete strangers to testator. Executor and one of the attesting witnesses were father and son. Said attesting witness introduced second attesting witness. Second executor renounced his executorship twice and stated on affidavit that other executor and attesting witness had a clear intention of usurping the estate of testator. No evidence to prove as to who drafted and got the Will typed before it reached testator in Hospital. Signatures of testator on all pages of Will, as appearing to naked eye, were not identical and did not tally with each other. Execution clause of Will on third page was completely cut off and disjunctive from the first 2 pages of Will. Unnatural exclusion of heirs of testator was also suspicious. Execution of Will was not duly proved.

    Shonali Kedar Dighe v. Ashita Tham and others AIR 2024 (NOC) 242 (BOM)