MSK Publications -MSK Law Reports 2015 – Ready Reckoner

Or.21, Rule 97 , Sec.47 & Sec.151 of CPC - claim petition -For the petitioner she got himself examined as PW-1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-4 whereas on behalf of the respondents no witness was examined and no documents were marked.  - In both the earlier claim petitions it was held by the Court that the E.P schedule property belonged to Amalakanti Ratnam. Accordingly, the trial Court dismissed the I.A. Against that order, the CMA was preferred which was dismissed making same observations aggrieved by which the present CRP has been filed. -a person not having any saleable interest in the property to question the corresponding sale. Emphatically Order XXI Rule 90(2) CPC clearly postulates that the question of sale of property can be raised by a person who got actual interest in the property.  Hence the petition is not tenable.-Section 47 CPC does not deal with the question of material irregularity or fraud in conducting the sale whereas that aspect is to be dealt wi...

    A person faced with injury with a  deadly  weapon  to  his  life  cannot  be expected to weigh in balance the  precise  force  needed  to  avoid  danger. No doubt normally the right of private defence is not  available  to  either of the parties in incidents of group  fighting,  but  that  is  not  a  rule without exception.-2015 S.C. msklawreports Exception 2 to Section 300 IPC reads as under: - "Exception 2.-Culpable homicide is  not  murder  if  the  offender,  in  the exercise in good faith  of  the  right  of  private  defence  of  person  or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of  the person  against  whom  he  is  exercising  such  right  of  defence  without premeditation, and ...

M.V.Act - sec.146 - Owner definition - Hypothecation agreement - Hire purchase agreement -the Motor Cycle  belonging  to  2nd  respondent  and  driven by the respondent No.3 herein, in a rash and negligent manner  dashed  against the scooter as a consequence of which she sustained  a  fracture  in the right  hand  superacondylar  fracture  and  humerus  bone  fracture  and  certain other injuries. -she filed claim petition - Tribunal awarded compensation directing to pay compensation jointly and severally - the  stand  and  stance  put  forth by the predecessor-in-interest the appellant bank  that  it  had  only  advanced a loan and the hypothecation agreement was  executed  on  1.11.2002  by it.   As per the terms of the agreement, the owner  of  the  vehicle  was  responsible to...

whether sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. is necessary from the State Government before prosecuting the Appellant, though he was removed from service following the procedure laid down in Jharkhand Police Manual.= an Inspector General of Police can dismiss a Sub-Inspector and, therefore, no sanction of the State Government for prosecution of the appellant was necessary even if he had committed the offences alleged while acting or purporting to act in discharge of this official duty.2015 S.C.(2013) MSKLAWREPORTS

Sanction for prosecution under Section 197 Cr.P.C shall be obtained and presented before the Magistrate prior to stage of issuing of process to the accused under Section 204 Cr.P.C.  At the same time, no sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C is required for presentation of a complaint before the Magistrate or for recording of sworn statement of the complainant by the Magistrate.  Question of applicability of Section 197 Cr.P.C has to be considered after examination of the complainant and his witnesses if any, by way of recording of their sworn statements by the Magistrate.  There is no option for the criminal Court except to dismiss the complaint in case sanction required under Section 197 Cr.P.C is not obtained prior to issuing of process to the accused.  The prohibition for taking cognizance of offence contained under Section 197(1) Cr.P.C is a mandatory prohibition and has to be considered at the threshold of the case and not at a subsequent stage....

whether  the  suit  filed  by  the father of the appellants in respect of property owned  by  appellants  Nos.1 and 2 could be held to be not maintainable even  when  the  appellants  were added as plaintiffs as heirs of their father who  died  during  pendency  of the suit and  whether description of the appellants who are owners  as  heirs instead of owners in their own right  will be  a case of mere "error, defect or irregularity" not affecting the merits  or jurisdiction of the Court which did not affect the maintainability of the suit.  = Thus on  admitted facts, only defect pointed out is of formal nature in  description  without, in any manner, affecting the merits or the jurisdiction of the Court.   Such irregularity could have been corrected by the Court under Order  1  Rule  10 and can be corrected even at this stage  unles...

Order 38, Rule 5(1)(a) CPC - whether the petitioner herein is about to dispose of whole or any part of his property, has to be considered in this case. There is no averment with regard to the aforesaid requirement by the plaintiff stating that the petitioner herein is about to dispose of whole or any pan of his property with intent to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him.  A reading of the affidavit on the face of it, does not satisfy the requirement under Order 38, Rule 5 CPC, and therefore, no order of attachment can be ordered in the instant case.  I am, therefore, of the opinion that the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge erred in ordering attachment. The order under revision is set aside and the CRP is allowed. No costs.-2015 A.P.(2001)MSKLAWREPORTS