Allied Laws

 Suo Motu Contempt Petition AIR 2017
SUPREME COURT 3836

 The advocate on record contended in an
extremely agitated manner that a great manipulation had occurred in the
Registry of the Court, in order to favour the opposite party with the objective
of “Bench Hunt”. Alleging that unscrupulous litigants aimed to bench
hunt, the Advocate on record also alleged the involvement of the registry
stating that in deviation from normal Rule of listing the matter before regular
bench, and indulging in constituting a special bench at the eleventh hour is
non-conventional and mischievous act on part of Registry.

It was observed that the contemnor was an
Advocate-on-Record, practicing in that capacity since the year 2009 – not a
novice in the field. He had been representing prestigious institutions, State
Government and Authorities and is obviously quite familiar with the practices
of the Court. He cannot be said to be oblivious to the fact that no bench is
constituted by the Registry, but by the Chief Justice of this Court. Thus, in
an indirect manner, an imputation was impliedly made even against the Chief
Justice, though in the garb of a virulent attack on the Registry.

The contempt jurisdiction is not only to
protect the reputation of the concerned Judge so that he can administer Justice
fearlessly and fairly, but also to protect “the fair name of the
judiciary”. The protection, in a manner of speaking, extends even to the
Registry in the performance of its task, and false and unfair allegations which
seek to impede the working of the Registry and thus the administration of
Justice, made with oblique motives, cannot be tolerated.

It was held that the allegations sought to
be made against the Registry with insinuations directed even against the
Judges, led to the prima facie satisfaction, that the Advocate-on-Record
had committed contempt in the face of the Court, by making such insinuations
and allegations and hence the contemnor was not permitted to practice as an
Advocate-on-Record, for a period of one month from the date of the order.

Joint Property –
Income from joint property used for purchasing property – Joint property.
[Hindu Law]

Pana Devi and Ors. vs. Ayodhaya Prasad
and Ors. AIR 2017 PATNA 145

A partition 
suit  was filed to claim a share
in the property.

The issue was whether the property was
purchased out of the income of the joint property or from the individual’s own
income, since if the property was from the income of individual’s own income,
the plaintiffs would be entitled to get a larger share in the property.

The Honourable Court held that since there
was no reliable evidence to show that there was separate source of income as
claimed by the plaintiffs, the property was considered to be acquired out of
the income of the Joint Property and hence, such property would also be treated
as the joint property.

License to drive
Light Motor Vehicle – Can also drive transport vehicle – Should be of same
class. [Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 
2(10), 2(21), 2(15), 2(47), 2(48), 3, and 10]

Mukund Dewangan vs. Oriental Insurance
Company Limited AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 3668

The issue was, what was the meaning to be
given to the definition of “light motor vehicle” as defined in
section 2(21) of the Motor Vehicles Act? Whether transport vehicles were
excluded from it?

It was held by the Honourable Court that
‘Light motor vehicle’ as defined in section 2(21) of the Act would include a
transport vehicle as per the weight prescribed in section 2(21) read with
sections 2(15) and 2(48). Such transport vehicles are not excluded from the
definition of the light motor vehicle. There is no requirement to obtain
separate endorsement to drive transport vehicle, and if a driver is holding
licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such
class without any endorsement to that effect.

Power of Attorney
holder can appear as witness [Evidence Act, 1872 –Section 118]

Radha Sharan Dubey and Ors. vs. Ram Niwas
and Ors. AIR 2017 (NOC) 828 (ALL.)

The founder trustees had created trust
through their Power of Attorney. The power of attorney was present in the
office of the sub-registrar and had admitted execution of the trust deed. The
trustees had executed separate power of attorneys in favour of the power of
attorney holder which were duly registered, before execution of the trust deed.
Thus, the Power of Attorney had power to depose, having personal knowledge of
the affairs of the trust. His oral deposition cannot be ignored for the fact of
being Power of Attorney holder of the trustees.

The question which arose for determination
before the Court was, as to whether the oral deposition of Power of Attorney
can be ignored only on the ground that he was only Power of Attorney Holder of
the plaintiff trust and, therefore, he had no personal knowledge of the facts
deposed.

It was held that a comprehensive reading of
the procedure as provided under Order III Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code
indicates that it does not deal with the merit of the evidence to be adduced in
a civil proceeding as to who may testify or depose. A careful reading of the
Order III Rule 1 CPC further shows that it does not deal with the power of the
General Power of Attorney to depose or the right of the Principal to authorise
his Power of Attorney to depose in his favour. There was also no prohibition
under the Evidence Act for a Power of Attorney to appear and depose on behalf
of his principal. The Power of Attorney Holder is a competent witness and is
entitled to appear as such. His evidence cannot be refused to be taken into consideration
merely on the ground that the parties to the suit i.e. the plaintiff or
defendant choose not to appear in the witness-box. Section 118 of the Evidence
Act provides the category of persons who are incapable of being witness in a
legal proceeding. The Power of Attorney does not fall in any of the said
categories. By cross-examination of the Power of Attorney, it can be seen
whether he has personal knowledge about the facts in controversy. The
evidentiary value of his deposition may be determined after due consideration
of his answer in the cross-examination.

It was thus concluded that the Power of
Attorney Holder was a competent witness and was entitled to appear as such, his
deposition will be read in evidence on record.

Surety – Liability
of surety co-extensive – Prerogative of decree holder as to against which
judgment debtors he should proceed against. [Chit Funds Act 1982, Section 25;
Contract Act 1872, Section 128].

Punyamurthula Venkata Viswa Sundara Rao
vs. Margadarsi Chit Fund Pvt. Ltd. and Ors. AIR 2017 (NOC) 774 (HYD.) (HC)

Civil revision petitions were filed to
execute an order passed against all the judgement debtors in the Arbitration
proceedings. The decree holder represented by its Principal Officer obtained
the award against the principal debtor and all the judgement debtors.

The simple issue which came up for
consideration was whether the decree holder has to proceed against all the
judgement debtors, who are guarantors, by claiming proportionate amount
decreed.

The
Honourable Court held that the law is well settled i.e. the decree holder has
an option to proceed against either the principal debtor or any of the
guarantors or against all of them. The liability of a surety is co-extensive
with that of the principal debtor, unless it is otherwise provided by the
contract, as section 128 of the Indian Contract Act is clearly worded. Hence,
it was concluded that it is completely the prerogative of the decree holder, as
to against whom he should proceed, for realising the debt. _