Allied Laws

19. 
Appellate Tribunal – Reasoned Order – Order should refer to all factual
aspects, rival contentions and legal provisions – Reasons to be assigned for
the basis of any conclusion reached. [Section 254(1)]

Gandhar Oil Refinery vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import)
2016 (342) E.L.T. 31 (Bom.) (HC)

The Tribunal, in the present case had, not beyond one
paragraph, adverted to factual exercise and no details had been mentioned.

The High Court held that the Tribunal should focus on the
core issue, must refer to all factual matters, including any findings by the
laboratories after a test of the samples, the rival contentions and whether the
legal provisions, including, the Rules having a bearing or impact on the same
should be clearly indicated. The Tribunal must assign reasons for the
conclusion it reaches either way.       

20. 
Contempt of Court – Serious and unsubstantiated allegations of
corruption and bias against Judiciary – Cannot be termed as Fair Criticism –
Affidavits filed for apology not deemed bonafide – Imprisonment upto 6 months
and upto Rs. 2,000 fine for contempt. [Contempt of Courts Act, 1971; Sections
2(c), 5, 12]

Het Ram Beniwal And Others vs. Raghuveer Singh And Others
Air 2016 Supreme Court 4940

The 4 appellants, of whom 2 were advocates, addressed a huge
gathering of their party workers in front of the Collectorate, when some of the
accused were granted anticipatory bail, who were allegedly involved in the
murder of a prominent trade union activist.

While addressing the gathering, the appellants made
scandalous and derogatory statements against the High Court and its Judges
stating how the system of Judiciary failed in rendering justice and people have
lost their faith and confidence in the Judiciary, the rule was of the Rich
People in the Judiciary and that there was the influence of money behind the
anticipatory bail of the accused.

The appellants, when questioned in Court by filing a
petition, contented that the statements only attributed to ‘Fair Criticism’
which would not amount to Contempt of Court as mentioned in section 5 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which states that Fair Criticism of Judicial act
was not contempt. It was also contended that Criticism of class bias and
improper administration of justice cannot be considered to be contempt.

The Ld. Amicus Curiae, assisting the Court, submitted
that vituperative comments undermining the Judiciary would amount to contempt
and that, an apology through an Affidavit was made only for the purpose of
avoiding punishment and was not bonafide.

The Supreme Court in the current case held that Judges need
not be protected and that they can protect themselves but it is the right and
interest of public in the due administration of justice that have to be
protected. Vilification of Judges would lead to the destruction of the system
of administration of justice. The statements of the appellants are not only
derogatory but also have the propensity of lowering the authority of the Court.
Accusing Judges of corruption results in denigration of the institution which
has an effect of lowering the confidence of the public in the system of
administration of justice. Hence, the appellants are not entitled to take
shelter u/s. 5.

The Court also states that every citizen has a fundamental
right to speech, guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.
Contempt of Court is one of the restrictions of such right.

Dismissing the appeal, the court subjected the appellants to
an amount of Rs.2,000/- only as fine without any imprisonment.

21. 
Family – The term ‘family’ includes a married daughter for her to have a
right to evict the tenant from the building [Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Regulation Act, 1972; Section 3(g)].

Gulshera Khanam vs. Aftab Ahmad Air 2016 9 Supreme Court
414

Dr. Ahsan Ahmad was the
original owner of the building who died intestate. On his death, the entire
estate devolved upon his wife(appellant), 2 sons and 4 daughters as per the
shares defined in the Hanafi Law of Inheritance. Dr. Naheed Parveen being the
daughter, received her share accordingly and became the co-owner along with
other co-sharers.

Section 3(g) of the Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Regulation Act, 1972 clearly states in sub-section(iii) that “family includes
any unmarried or widowed or divorced or judicially separated daughter or
daughter of a male lineal descendent as may have been normally residing with
him or her” which clearly shows the intention of the legislation to exclude a
married daughter from the purview of the definition of ‘Family’ as defined under
the Act.

However, the Supreme Court took a different view by
interpreting the lines included in section 3(g) which are stated in the end as,
“and includes, in relation to a landlord, any female having a legal right of
residence in that building”. It was held that since the daughter got a legal
right in the building in the form of a share devolved on her as per the
Mohamedan law i.e. the Hanafi Law of Inheritance, the term ‘Family’ includes a
Married daughter.

22.  Interpretation-Binding precedents – If two
decisions of Supreme Court, being contrary to each other, are passed – The
later decision will be binding. [Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions)
Act, 1985; Section 22]

A.K. Mohta vs. Karnataka State Financial Corpn. [2016] 198
Comp Cas 286 (Karn.)(HC)

The issue was w.r.t. whether guarantors can be protected from
legal ‘proceedings’ whereas the section clearly mentions the word ‘suit’
against which the guarantors could claim protection u/s. 22 and not against
‘proceedings’.

Relevant portion of the section states, “and no suit for the recovery of money or for the
enforcement of any security against the industrial company or of any guarantee
in respect of any loans or advance granted to the industrial company”.

The court had placed reliance on one Supreme Court case law
(2003) where it stated that Legislature appeared to have knowingly used two
differently expressions in section 22(1) w.r.t. ‘proceeding’ and ‘suit
wherein the expression ‘proceeding’ would not include the expression ‘suit’ and
vice versa w.r.t to protection of Guarantors under the said Act.

The counsel however,
relied upon one Supreme Court Judgment (2007) which held that section 22(1)
would have to be interpreted to include the expression ‘proceeding’ also in
view of the legislature’s intention to protect the sick industries.

A peculiar fact was that, the earlier decision had not been
taken into consideration for the purpose of arriving at the judgment passed by
the Supreme Court in the later year (2007) and a larger bench did not have an
occasion to lay down the correct position of law.

The High Court in the current case held that if two decisions
of the Supreme Court on a question of law cannot be reconciled and if both
Benches of the Supreme Court consist of equal number of Judges, the later of
the two decisions should be followed by the lower Courts/Authorities.

23. Interpretation – Binding
precedents – Binding  effect of order –
Order even if void, would continue to be in force until set aside by court of
competent jurisdiction.

Anita International vs. Tungabadra Sugar Works Mazdoor
Sangh and Ors. (2016) 9 Supreme Court Cases 44

It was held that parties to lis(a suit pending) or any
third party cannot themselves determine the voidness of any order without
approaching a competent court for setting it aside since not following the same
would amount to disobedience of court’s order which would entail punishment.