1. Law on Nuisance: Constitution of India Article 21

Peaceful living in one’s home is a right, as essential part of right to life. The law on nuisance is well settled. Nuisance in any form as recognised in the law of torts, whether private, public or common which results in affecting anyone’s personal or/and property rights gives him a cause of action/right to seek remedial measures in court of law against those who caused such nuisance to him and further gives him right to obtain necessary reliefs both in form of preventing committing of nuisance and appropriate damages/compensation for the loss, if sustained by him due to causing of such nuisance.

Balwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 801.

  1. Jurisdiction before two forum – Choice to file application available to a party before either of the forum

When two forums are available to party, he has a choice of instituting the suit in either of the forums. Both High Court being court of civil original jurisdiction and District court being court of civil original jurisdiction in the district , the application for setting aside the award u/s. 34 can lie in either of the court.

Ramesh Chand Kathuria & Anr v. M/s. Trikuta Chemicals Pvt Ltd. Anr. AIR 2015 J & K 52 Full Bench.

  1. Doctrine of Prospective overruling – Constitution of India, Article 141

The doctrine of prospective overruling can be considered to be a part of judicial legislation and has, therefore a binding effect under Article 141 of the Constitution of India so as to take care of the transitory situation like the laws made by Parliament or the State legislatures to save the past transactions and to prohibit their reopening of the concluded issues on the basis of new enactment.

Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 2015 Bombay 123.

  1. Equality before law – Constitution of India Article 14

When properties are acquired by the State, it acts as trustee thereof. It is not open for Ministers of State to direct restoration of some of such properties to erstwhile landowners as and by way of Special case. In absence of any reason or material for making of such order it was held that order was liable to be set a side.

Rashtriya Shikshan Mandal v. State of Maharashtra and ors. AIR 2015 (NOC) 655 Bom

  1. Precedent – Dismissal of SLP

Dismissal of SLP in limine would not constitute ratio of the decision.

Arun s/o Vishwanath Sonone v. State of Maharashtra and Ors. AIR 2015 Bombay 123.

  1. Word and Phares – Principal place of business – Reside

Word ‘’Principal place of business” means where governing power of corporation is exercised where those meet in council who have right to control its affairs.

Word ‘’Reside” means to dwell permanently or for considerable time, to have one’s settled or usual abode to live in or at particular place.

Dinesh Mehta v. STA Odisha and Ors. AIR 2015 Orissa 88.

  1. Order refusing to initiate contempt proceedings by Tribunal – Writ maintainable

When the Tribunal under the Act refuses to initiate a contempt proceedings, a writ petition under Article 226/227 against order of refusal is maintainable and it cannot be said that in such case only petition under Article 136 is maintainable.

Sujitendra Nath Singh Roy v. State of West Bengal & Ors. AIR 2015 SC 1831.

  1. Foreign Judgment – Enforcement

Foreign judgment is enforceable before court in India. Foreign judgment passed after considering evidence on merits, hence enforceable.

Masterbaker Marketing Ltd. v. Noshir Mohsin Chinwalla. Air 2015 (NOC) 771 (Bom.)

  1. Joint names of parties – Effect – Admissibility of document – Unregistered acknowledgement: Registration Act

If registered sale deed was in joint names of parties without indicating quantum of contribution, even if one of parties contributed entire sale consideration, same would be irrelevant and each co-owner would be entitled to one half of the property.

Secondly terms of registered sale deed cannot be varied or altered by unregistered document.

P. V. Krishnappa and Ors. v. . Ramaswamy Reddy. AIR 2015 (NOC) 763 (Kar.)

  1. Exemplary cost – Senior citizen

Petitioner visually impaired senior citizen suffered mental and financial harassment by compelling to contest matter, entitled to cost of Rs. 50,000/- .

Jaikishan Aggarwal (Total Blind) vs. Greater Noida Industrial Devp. Authority and Ors. Air 2015 (NOC) 884 (All)

  1. Right of Information Act, 2005 – S. 8(1)(j) : Return – Disclosure of income-tax returns of a politician on the ground that it is necessary for “purity of elections” and “probity in public life” is not possible as it is not in “public interest” [S. 6, 11]

    1. In Girish Ramchandra Deshpande v. Central Information Commission & Ors(2013) 1 Supreme Court Cases 212 it was held that the details disclosed by a person in his Income Tax Returns is personal information which has been exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of section 8(1) of the said Act, unless involved a larger public and the CPIO and or State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information;

    2. What flows from the Judgments of the Apex Court is that the Income Tax Returns constitute personal information and are exempted from disclosure under section 8(1)(j) and that the said personal information can only be divulged if the CPIO or the State Public Information Officer reaches a conclusion that it would be in the larger public interest to reveal such information. In the instant case, the reason set forth in the first application filed by the Petitioner before the Public Information Officer hardly makes out a case for the information to be disclosed on the ground of public interest. In so far as the ground made out in the Appeal filed before the First Appellate Authority is concerned, the Petitioner has sought to make a general statement which does not specifically relate to the Respondent No. 3. The Petitioner has also sought to justify the information sought on the ground that the Income Tax authorities do not check the Income Tax Returns of those who are elected with their declared affidavits filed at the time of standing for elections. The said ground also does not make out any case of there being any public interest involved in the disclosure of the information sought by the Petitioner by way of the Income Tax Returns of the Respondent No.3 for the preceding three years. The Petitioner is in fact seeking the information by questioning the manner in which the Income Tax Department functions. Since the Petitioner is seeking information relating to the Respondent No.3 the Petitioner was required to demonstrate as to how the disclosure of the information relating to the Respondent No.3 would serve public interest. As indicated above, the Petitioner has made a general and sweeping statement which can hardly be said to satisfy the test of disclosure being made in public interest. (WP. No. 8753 of 2013, dated 11-6-2015.)

Shailesh Gandhi v. CIC & Ajit Pawar (Bom.) (HC); www.itatonline.org

Ajay R. Singh

Comments are closed.