Allied Laws

Doctrine of Merger – Dismissal of
appeal by High Court – Thereafter, Tribunal’s order merged with High Court’s
Order.

Ratnadip Shipping Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus. (General) 2017 (345) E.L.T. 148 (Trib. – Mum)

The only issue in the
present case was whether the Revenue could file a Miscellaneous application for
the implementation of the Tribunal’s order after it had filed an appeal to the
High Court which was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the
Tribunal’s order stood merged with the Hon’ble High Court’s order. After the
Hon’ble High Court’s order, this Tribunal cannot pass any order for
implementation as the Hon’ble High Court’s order is
in force and this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass any order after the
Hon’ble High Court’s order. Therefore, the present miscellaneous application
has become infructuous, hence dismissed.

Foreign Court – Order executable
under the Civil Procedure Code. [Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Sections 13,
35(3), and 44A]

Alcon Electronics Pvt.
Ltd. vs. Celem S.A. of FOS 34320 Roujan, France and Ors. AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT
1

In the present case, the
English Court dismissed the claims of the Appellant w.r.t. the ground raised of
infringement of rights of the Appellant and further directed it to pay the
costs of application to the Respondents. The Appellant agreed to pay the costs
and sought for some time.

When the Respondents filed
a petition for execution of the decree of the Foreign Court in India, the
Appellant opposed it in an application on the ground that the order of English
Court was not executable. The executing Court dismissed the same which was
confirmed by the High Court. Hence, the Appellant filed the present appeal before
the Supreme Court.

The Court analysed whether
an order passed by a foreign court fell within Exceptions to Section 13 of
Code. It observed that a “foreign judgement” is defined under section
2(6) as judgment of a foreign court. “Judgement” as per section 2(9)
of Code of Civil Procedure means the statement given by the Judge on the
grounds of a decree or an order. Order is defined u/s. 2(14) of Code of Civil
Procedure as a formal expression of any decision of the Civil Court which is
not a ‘decree’. Explanation 2 to section 44A(3) says “decree” with
reference to a superior Court means any ‘decree’ or ‘judgment’. As per the
plain reading of the definition ‘Judgement’ means the statement given by the
Judge on the grounds of decree or order and order is a formal expression of a
Court. Thus, “decree” includes judgement and “judgement”
includes “order”. On conjoint reading of ‘decree’, ‘judgement’ and
‘order’ from any angle, the order passed by the English Court falls within the
definition of ‘Order’ and therefore, it is a judgement and thus becomes a
“decree” as per Explanation to section 44A(3) of Code of Civil
Procedure.

It was held by the Supreme Court that in the case of the
judgment passed by the foreign court, Indian Courts are very much entitled to
address the issue for execution of the interest amount. The right to 8%
interest as per the Judgments Act, 1838 of UK can be recognised and as well as
implemented in India. Therefore, the Execution Petition filed by the
Respondents for execution of the order passed by the English Court was
maintainable under the relevant provisions.

Fundamental Duty – To safeguard the
public properties from illegalities – By every citizen. [Constitution of India;
Art. 51A; Bombay Police Act, 1951 – Section 33; Maharashtra Municipal
Corporations Act, 1949, Section 244; Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of
Property Act, 1995, Sections 2, 3]

Suswarajya Foundation
vs. The Collector, Satara AIR 2017 (NOC) 521 (Bom.)(HC)

A PIL was filed w.r.t.
every town and city in the State of Maharashtra having a large number of
illegal banners/hoardings/posters, etc., displayed mainly by political
leaders/workers.

The definition of
‘Defacement’ as contained in the Maharashtra Prevention of Defacement of
Property Act, 1995 (The ‘Act’) to better understand the act is as under:

“S.2(b): ‘defacement’
includes impairing or interfering with the appearance or beauty, damaging
disfiguring, spoiling or injuring in any way whatsoever and the word
“deface” shall be construed accordingly;”

Section 3 of the Act also
provides for imprisonment of 3 months in case a person defaces any place open
to public view.

The Court held that the
citizens including political workers and leaders follow the mandate of Article
51A of the Constitution of India by safeguarding the public properties from
such illegalities.

Commenting on the duties
of citizens and political parties, the Court laid down the directions to be
followed as under:

–  There
shall be a senior inspector who shall be responsible for the implementation of
the provisions of the Act.

–  The
Officers or the Committees, as the case may be, shall be responsible for
expeditious removal of illegal hoardings, banners, flexes, temporary arches,
posters etc.

–  The Senior Inspector of Police or the Officer
In-charge of the concerned local police station shall extend adequate police
protection and police help to the Municipal staff and Municipal officials while
taking action of removal of the illegal hoardings, banners etc.

–  Minimum two armed constables shall accompany
the municipal officials and the staff at the time of removal of illegal
hoardings, banners, flexes, temporary arches, posters etc.;

–  Even on receiving any oral information, the
officer-in-charge shall be under an obligation to take appropriate action.

–  Anonymous complaints shall be entertained on
the toll free numbers. If the citizens find that no action is being taken on
the basis of the complaints made on toll free numbers, it will be open for them
to make a complaint in writing to the Nodal Officers of the Municipal
Authorities as well as the Nodal Revenue Officers of the State Government who
shall take action on the basis of such complaints;

The court thus provided
interim relief in the manner above in the case.

Gift Deed – Subsequent revocation of
the deed is void and invalid [Transfer of Property Act, 1882; Section 126].

Syamala Raja Kumari and
Ors. vs. Alla Seetharavamma and Ors.AIR 2017 HYDERABAD86

The only issue was whether
a gift deed transferred unconditionally in favour of someone can be revoked
subsequently?

One Mr. Narapa Reddy
executed a gift settlement deed in favour of the plaintiffs (his daughters) and
his wife out of love and affection. Under the said document, life interest
right was retained by the donor and after the death of donor, his wife was to
enjoy the property without any right of alienation till her death and
thereafter, the donees-plaintiffs could enjoy the property with absolute
rights. But subsequently, the donor executed a revocation deed by giving the
reason that the plaintiffs were not taking care of him and his wife and they
were not visiting his house and they had lost his confidence and so, he revoked
the gift settlement deed executed. The donor executed another revocation deed
wherein he mentioned that the plaintiffs obtained the gift settlement deed by
misrepresenting him. But the said fact is not mentioned in the earlier
revocation deed. Thereafter, the donor’s wife died.

Section 126 of the
Transfer of Property Act was reproduced to show that the donor and donee may
agree that on the happening of any specified event which does not depend on the
Will of the donor, a gift shall be suspended or revoked; but a gift, which the
parties agree shall be revocable wholly or in part, at the mere will of the
donor, is void wholly or in part, as the case may be.

The Court held that the
plaintiffs would get absolute rights in respect of the property. By executing
the said gift settlement deed, the donor had divested his right in the property
so he could not unilaterally execute any revocation deed for revoking the gift
settlement deed executed by him in favour of the plaintiffs.

The revocation deeds
executed by the donor were not binding on the plaintiffs as the said deeds were
not valid. Once the donor had no right to revoke the gift settlement deed
validly executed by him in favour of the plaintiffs, he cannot alienate the
property.

Succession – Class I legal heir to
have a better title than the nominee – Absence of Will paved way for following
the course of succession over the rules of nomination. [Hindu Succession Act,
Chapter IV, Schedule u/s. 8]

Sham Singh vs. Kashmir
Kaur and Ors. AIR 2017 (NOC)473(P.&H.)

The husband of the plaintiff
namely Darshan Singh (deceased) had deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- in the post
office of Village Tibber, under Kisan Vikas Patra Scheme. Appellant-defendant
No. 1 (Sham Shingh), who was the son of the real sister of Darshan Singh
(deceased) had withdrawn Rs. 1 lakh on maturity of the said Kisan Vikas Patra
scheme from the post office. It was pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent i.e.
widow of the depositor, that Sham Singh was not entitled to and had no right to
withdraw the amount.

The court observed that
where the Will propounded by the appellant is concerned, the same has not been
brought on record of this case by the appellant nor any evidence to prove the
execution of the said Will, has been produced.

The Court ultimately held
that even though appellant-defendant was appointed as a nominee by
deceased-Darshan Singh, it is a settled principle of the law that the
nomination cannot alter the course of succession as per the provisions of Hindu
Succession Act.

The nomination only
indicates the hand which is authorised to receive the amount on payment of
which the post office was to get a valid discharge of its liability but the
legal heirs of deceased are entitled to claim the said amount in accordance
with law of succession governing them.