Allied Laws

10. Books of Accounts – Entries in
loose papers – Incriminating materials seized in raids conducted on industries
– Not maintained in the regular course of business – Not admissible [Evidence
Act (1 of 1872), Section 34; Criminal Procedure Code (2 of 1974), Section  156].

Common Cause (A Registered Society) and Ors. vs. Union of
India (UOI) and Ors. AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 540

There was a raid on some industries by the C.B.I., followed
by another raid by the Income tax Department, which reportedly led to recovery
of incriminating documents.

The Court stated that loose sheets of papers should be in the
form of “Books of Account”. While defining the term ‘books of account’, it
stated that entries in loose papers/sheets are irrelevant and not admissible
u/s. 34 of the Evidence Act, and that, a book is a book of account and such a
book of account should be regularly kept in the course of business.

The Court also stated that the value of entries in the books
of account shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with
liability, even if they are relevant and admissible. They are only
corroborative evidence. It is incumbent upon the person relying upon those entries
to prove that they are in accordance with the facts.

It was held that loose sheets of papers are wholly irrelevant
as evidence being not admissible u/s. 34 so as to constitute evidence with
respect to the transactions mentioned therein having no evidentiary value.

11. Consumer – Trust not a Person
and hence not a Consumer – Complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act – Not
maintainable. [Consumer Protection Act (68 of 1986); Section 2]

Pratibha Pratisthan and Ors. vs. Manager, Canara Bank and
Ors. AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 1303

The issue in question was whether a complaint can be filed by
a trust under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

Section 2 (c) of the Act provided for the various reasons why
anyone could file a complaint.

However, a Complainant is defined u/s. 2 (b) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986, which states that a complainant could be a consumer, any
voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956, the
Central Government or the State Government, one or more consumers or the legal
heirs of a Consumer.

The inclusion of a trust was not apparent from the bare
reading of the text of the Section.

Section 2(d) defines consumer, where it describes the
activities performed by a ‘Person’, which would term him/her as a consumer. No
mention of a Trust or any other form of person is mentioned.

To have complete understanding, even the definition of
‘Person’ u/s. 2(m) of the Act was considered where it is declared that Person
does not include Trust.

It was then held by the Supreme Court that on perusal of the
above mentioned provisions, it is clear that a Trust is not a person and
therefore not a consumer. Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot
file a consumer dispute under the provisions of the Act.

12. Evidence – Subsequent events
during litigation – Having direct bearing on the issue can be considered by the
Court even if it is brought before the Court for the first time[Evidence Act,
1872; Section 56].

Dinshaw Rusi Mehta vs. State of Maharashtra AIR 2017
Supreme Court 1557

The appeal came up before the Supreme Court out of the Writ
petition filed before the Hon’ble High Court. The brief facts of the issue to
appreciate the matter at hand will show that there was one Public and Charitable
Trust called the ‘Parsi Lying in Hospital’ (PLIH) located in Fort, Mumbai. PLIH
owned a land which had been allotted by the Secretary of State for India, for a
period of 99 years by executing an indenture of Lease, for setting up a
charitable hospital in Bombay.

In the year 1924, PHIL resolved to transfer the said land to
another Public Trust called the ‘Bombay Parsi Punchayat’ (BPP) vide High Court
Order. Insofar as the management of the hospital was concerned, a management
committee used to look after its day to day management. Some Trustees of BPP
were also the Trustees of PLIH.

The hospital continued for a few years and remained closed
for various years for various reasons. The Trust decided to re-start the
hospital in collaboration with one company called the ‘Krimson Health Ventures
Private Limited’(KHPL), which is an expert at running and managing hospitals.

The Trustees applied to the Charity Commissioner, the
approval for which was granted to execute the lease deed and the work to be
started by KHPL.

The Hon’ble High Court dismissed the Writ petition filed
against the approval granted.

The appeal filed before the Supreme Court was against the
order of the High Court.

During the pendency of the
litigation before the Supreme Court, KHPL, in whose favour the land had been
transferred for setting up a new hospital, vide their letter to
BPP/PLIH, informed them of the disinterest of KHPL in continuing the project
for the reasons mentioned in the letter.

It was held by the Court that, since, the subsequent events
brought to the notice of the Court, have a direct bearing over the controversy
involved in the case, they deserve to be taken note of for deciding the appeal
before them.

13.
Property Inheritance – Property from husband or father in law cannot be
alienated by unregistered compromise decree in favour of sister’s son –
Property to revert back to husband’s legal heirs. [Hindu Succession Act, (30 of
1956), Section 15(2)(b); Registration Act, (16 of 1908), Section 17]

Hari Ram and Another vs. Madan Lal and AnotherAIR 2017
PUNJAB AND HARYANA69

An ancestral property which was inherited by 4 sons having
1/4th share  each. One of the son’s wife
(Defendant no.2), after the death of her husband, voluntarily executed a decree
in favour of her sister’s son (Defendant no.1) transferring the property to
him.

The other 3 sons (Plaintiffs) contested the said transfer on
the ground that the compromise decree was supposed to be registered u/s. 17 of
the Registration Act, 1908, which was not done. Secondly, in view of section
15(2)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, the property, after the death of
defendant no.2 (wife), would revert back to the legal heirs of her husband,
since the wife’s sister’s son would not even have the remote chance of
succession and only the successors of the Husband would be entitled to receive
the property in question.

The High Court held that the decree having purportedly
created a legal right in defendant no.2 for the first time. Defendant no.2 did
not have any pre-existing right in the property. The right created for the 1^st
time was of a value of more than Rs.100 and hence was legally required to be
registered, which was not done in the present case. Connectivity of Defendant
no.1 vis-a-vis defendant no.2 being sister’s son having no such remote
chance of succession to the property left by defendant no. 2 was also
established. Hence the order was passed in favour of the plaintiffs.

14. Power of Attorney – No existing
obligation nor any obligation created in favour of agent by the principal – Can
be revoked by principal even if the title suggests document to be irrevocable.
[Power of Attorney Act, (7 of1882, Section 2; Contract Act, (9 of 1872),
Section 202]

Siddareddy Venkatanagaraja Reddy vs. Shahamat Ali Khan AIR
2017 HYDERABAD 59.

The principal (defendant), in order to meet his necessities
and to discharge the liabilities, intended to sell dwelling units including
land apurtenant. The principal being pre-occupied, requested the General Power
of Attorney holder (GPA-Plaintiff) to act for him and on his behalf, to do all
the acts, deed and things necessary and as stipulated under the General Power
of Attorney.

However, the GPA nowhere mentioned that the same is supported by
consideration or with reciprocal remunerative obligation of anything incurred
by the agent. Section 201 of the Contract Act states that an agency is
terminated by the principal by revoking his authority, etc. Section 202
states that, if the agent himself has an interest in the property which forms
the subject matter of the agency, the agency cannot, in the absence of express
contract, be terminated to the prejudice of such interest.