Search results for ‘SC 2001

Amina Ahmed Dossa and others Versus State of Maharashtra [ ALL SC 2001 January]

We have noted with concern that the Special Court has unnecessarily spent valuable public time in writing the lengthy judgment for disposing of the claims of the appellants which, we feel, could have been decided by a brief but speaking orders. Brevity of orders on application of mind and not the length of the order is the criterion for adjudicating the rights of the parties which are otherwise subject to the decision of a Civil Court.

Advertisements

Sardar Sambhaji Angre vs H.H. Jyitiraditya M. Scindia And Ors [BHC] – 18/6/2019

In case of the partition suit, all the parties are to be treated as plaintiffs. Even if any preliminary decree would have been passed by this court in this suit based on the said affidavit dated 15th October, 1985 under Order 20 Rule 18 read with sections 151 to 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, court has ample power to pass more than one preliminary decree or to modify the preliminary decree prior to passing of the final decree having regard to change of supervening  circumstances.

In case of inordinate delay in lodging FIR, Court may reject the case if delay is not satisfactorily explained-SC

CRIMINAL – Sections 365 and 352 of the Indian Penal Code – Normally, the Court may reject the case of the prosecution in case of inordinate delay in lodging the first information report because of the possibility of concoction of evidence by the prosecution. However, if the delay is satisfactorily explained, the Court will decide the matter on merits without giving much importance to such delay. The Court is duty bound to determine whether the explanation afforded is plausible enough given the facts and circumstances of the case. The delay may be condoned if the complainant appears to be reliable and without any motive for implicating the accused falsely – SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [ March 29, 2019 ]

If property belongs to Government for acquisition of easementary right by prescription user of “30 years” is required.

It is settled principle of law that what has not been conferred in the plaint cannot be proved. Only right of easement by way of prescription has been pleaded, alleging that Plaintiff was using the land of Plot No. 164 for 20 years. It is pertinent to mention here that at the end of Section 15 of Indian Easement Act, 1882, which pertains to acquisition by prescription, it is specifically mentioned that if the property, over which a right is claimed, belongs to the Government, the word ’20 years’ shall be read as ’30 years’. As such, in respect of a Government land mere user for 20 years does not confer any easementary right by way of prescription to the Plaintiff, as he has nowhere pleaded that he used the land for 30 years or more.