ALLIED LAWS

25. Hindu
Succession Act, 1956, section 6 – Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 –
Equal right of a daughter in HUF – Devolution of interest in coparcenary property
– Confers status of coparcener on daughters, even if born prior to the
amendment, with effect from 9^th September, 2005 – And it is not
necessary that the father should be living as on 9^th September, 2005
– Amendment is retrospective

Vineeta Sharma vs. Rakesh Sharma & Ors. Diary No. 32601 of 2018 (SC) Date of order: 11^th August, 2020 Bench: Arun Mishra J., S. Abdul Naseer J.,
M.R. Shah J.

FACTS

Several appeals on the issue of
retrospective effect of section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act were filed before
the Supreme Court. In one of the cases, Vineeta Sharma (appellant) filed a case
against her two brothers, viz., Rakesh Sharma and Satyendra Sharma, and her
mother (respondents). The father, Dev Dutt Sharma, had three sons, one daughter
and a wife. He expired on 11^th December, 1999. One of his sons
(unmarried) expired on 1^st July, 2001. The appellant claimed that
being the daughter she was entitled to 1/4^th share in the property
of her father. The case of the respondents was that after her marriage she
ceased to be a member of the joint family. The High Court disposed of the
appeal as the amendments of 2005 did not benefit the appellant because her
father had passed away on 11^th December, 1999.

HELD

The Supreme Court held that the provisions
contained in substituted section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 confer the
status of coparcener on the daughter born before or after the amendment, in the
same manner as a son, with the same rights and liabilities. Since the right in
coparcenary is by birth, it is not necessary that the father should be living
as on 9^th September, 2005 (the date of the amendment).

26. Indian
Evidence Act, 1872, section 65B – Evidence – Electronic record – Certificate
u/s 65B(4) – Not necessary that original document itself is produced

Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash
Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors. CA No. 20825-20826 of 2017 (SC) Date of order: 14^th July, 2020 Bench: V. Ramasubramanian J., R.F. Nariman
J., S. Ravindra Bhat J.

FACTS

Two election petitions were filed by the present
respondents before the Bombay High Court challenging the election of the
present appellant, Arjun Panditrao Khotkar, to the Maharashtra State
Legislative Assembly for the term commencing November, 2014. The case revolved
around the four sets of nomination papers filed by the appellant. It was the
case of the present respondents that each set of nomination papers suffered
from defects of a substantial nature and, therefore, all four sets of
nomination papers having been improperly accepted by the Returning Officer of
the Election Commission, the election of the appellant be declared void. In
particular, the respondents contended that the late presentation of nomination
forms (filed by the RC after the stipulated time of 3.00 p.m. on 27^th
September, 2014), meant that such nomination forms were not filed in accordance
with the law and ought to have been rejected.

The respondents sought to rely upon the
video camera arrangements that were made both inside and outside the office of
the Returning Officer (RO). According to the respondents, the nomination papers
were only offered at 3.53 p.m. (i.e. beyond 3.00 p.m.), as a result of which it
was clear that they had been filed after time. A specific complaint making this
objection was submitted by Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal before the RO at 11 am
on 28^th September, 2014 in which it was requested that the RO reject
the nomination forms that had been improperly accepted. This request was
rejected by the RO on the same day, stating that the nomination forms had, in
fact, been filed within time. The High Court, by its order dated 16^th March, 2016, ordered the Election Commission and the
officers concerned to produce the entire record of the election of the constituency, including the original video
recordings. A specific order was made that the electronic record needs to be produced along with the ‘necessary
certificates’. The Court held that the CDs that were produced by the Election Commission could not be
treated as an original record and would, therefore, have to be proved by means
of secondary evidence. It was also found that no written certificate as
required by section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act was furnished by any of the
election officials.

HELD

The Supreme Court held that a certificate
u/s 65B(4) is unnecessary if the original document itself is produced. This can
be done by the owner of a laptop computer, computer tablet or even a mobile
phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the device concerned,
on which the original information is first stored, is owned and / or operated
by him.

27. Foreign
Exchange Regulation Act (FERA), 1973, sections 8, 51, 68 — Liability for
offence — Role played in company affairs — Not designation or status

Shailendra
Swarup vs. The Deputy Director, Enforcement CA No. 2463 of 2014 (SC) Date of order: 27^th July, 2020 Bench: Ashok Bhushan J., R. Subhash Reddy
J., M.R. Shah J.

FACTS

Modi Xerox Ltd. (MXL) was a company
registered under the Companies Act, 1956 in 1983. Between 12^th June,
1985 and 21^st November, 1985, 20 remittances were made by the
company through its banker Standard Chartered Bank. The Reserve Bank of India
issued a letter stating that despite reminders issued by the authorised dealer,
MXL had not submitted the Exchange Control copy of the customs bills of Entry /
Postal Wrappers as evidence of import of goods into India. The Enforcement
Directorate wrote to MXL in 1991-1993 for supplying invoices as well as
purchase orders. MXL on
9^th July, 1993 provided the documents for four transactions and
Chartered Accountant’s Certificates for balance 16 amounts for which MXL’s
bankers were unable to trace old records dating back to 1985. MXL amalgamated
and merged into Xerox Modicorp Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “XMC”) on 10^th
January, 2000. A show cause notice dated 19^th February, 2001 was issued by the Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate to MXL and its
directors, including the appellant. The notice required to show cause in
writing as to why adjudication proceedings as contemplated in section 51 of
FERA should not be held against them. The Directorate of Enforcement decided to
hold proceedings as contemplated in section 51 of the FERA, 1973 read with
sub-sections 3 and 4 of section 49 of FEMA and fixed 22^nd October,
2003 for personal hearing. A notice dated 8^th October, 2003 was sent
to MXL and its directors.

In reply the appellant stated that he is a
practising advocate of the Supreme Court and was only a part-time,
non-executive director of MXL and he was never in the employment of the company
nor had any executive role in its functions. It was further stated that the
appellant was never in charge of, nor ever responsible for, the conduct of the
business of the company. The Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, after
hearing the appellant and other directors of the company, passed an order dated
31^st March, 2004 imposing a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 on the appellant
for contravention of section 8(3) read with 8(4) and section 68 of FERA, 1973.

The appellant approached the Appellate
Tribunal for foreign exchange but his appeal was dismissed on 26^th March, 2008. A criminal appeal was filed by the appellant in
the Delhi High Court but by the impugned judgment dated 18^th
October, 2009 it dismissed the appeal of the appellant.

HELD

The Supreme Court held that for proceeding
against a director of a company for contravention of provisions of FERA, 1973
the necessary ingredient for proceeding shall be that at the time the offence
was committed, the director was in charge of and was responsible to the company
for the conduct of its business. The liability to be proceeded with for an
offence u/s 68 of FERA, 1973 depends on the role one plays in the affairs of
the company and not on mere designation or status.

Editor’s Note: FERA, 1973 has been substituted with FEMA, 1999. Section 51 of
FERA, 1973 is similar to section 13(1) of FEMA, 1999.

28. Constitution
of India, Articles 226, 300A – High Courts bound to issue Writ of Mandamus –
For enforcement of public duties – Right to property is a fundamental right and
human right

Hare Krishna Mandir Trust vs. State of Maharashtra
& Ors. CA No. 6156 of 2013 (SC) Date of order: 7^th August, 2020 Bench: Indu Malhotra J., Indira Banerjee J.

FACTS

The Thorat family was the owner of a plot at
Bhamburda in Pune. By a registered deed of conveyance dated 21^st
December, 1956, one Krishnabai Gopal Rao Thorat sold the northern part of the
plot jointly to Swami Dilip Kumar Roy, one of the most eminent disciples of Sri
Aurobindo, and Indira Devi, daughter-disciple of Swami Dilip Kumar Roy. Swami
Dilip Kumar Roy had moved to Pune to propagate the philosophy of Sri Aurobindo
and established the Hare Krishna Mandir with his daughter disciple, Indira
Devi, on the land purchased from Krishnabai Gopal Rao Thorat.

According to the appellants, the Pune
Municipal Corporation, by an order dated 20^th August, 1970, divided
Plot No. 473 which was originally numbered Survey No. 1092. The final plot No.
473 B was sub-divided into four plots. On 20^th August, 1970 the City
Survey Officer directed issuance of separate property cards in view of a
proposed Development Scheme under the Regional and Town Planning Act which
included Final Plot No. 473, and an Arbitrator was appointed. The Arbitrator
made an award dated 16^th May, 1972 directing that the area and
ownership of the plots were to be as per entries in the property register. The
appellant contended that the Pune Municipal Corporation by its letters dated 29^th
June, 1996, 4^th January, 1997 and 18^th January, 1997
admitted that the internal road had never been acquired by the Pune Municipal
Corporation. The Town and Planning Department also admitted that the Pune
Municipal Corporation had wrongly been shown to be the owner of the said road.

The Urban Development Department rejected
the proposal of the appellant and held that the Pune Municipal Corporation is
the owner of the land. The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Writ Petition
challenging the said order and refused to issue a Writ of Mandamus.

HELD

The Supreme
Court held that the right to property may not be a fundamental right any
longer, but it is still a Constitutional right under Article 300A and a human
right. In view of the mandate of Article 300A of the Constitution of India, no
person is to be deprived of his property save by the authority of law. The High
Courts, exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution,
not only have the power to issue a Writ of Mandamus or in the nature of
Mandamus, but they are duty-bound to exercise such power where the Government
or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised
discretion conferred upon it by a statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of
the Government, or has exercised such discretion mala fide or on
irrelevant consideration. The High Court is not deprived of its jurisdiction to
entertain a petition under Article 226 merely because in considering the
petitioner’s right to relief questions of fact may fall to be determined.
Exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary, but the discretion must be
exercised on sound judicial principles.

We must never ever give up, or give in or throw in the
towel. We must continue to press on! And be prepared to do what we can to help
educate people, to motivate people, to inspire people to stay engaged, to stay
involved and to not lose their sense of hope. We must continue to say we’re one
people. We’re one family. We all live in the same house. Not just an American
house but the world house. As Dr. King said over and over again, ‘We must learn
to live together as brothers and sisters.
If not, we will perish as fools.