A. Private Financial institutions not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The Writ petitions under Article 226 against Private Financial Institutions therefore would not be maintainable.
B. Proceedings under Sarfaesi Act and proceedings initiated by the financial institutions under other statutes would be maintainable simultaneously. The two proceedings can go hand in hand. There is no bar on the financial institutions from resorting to other statutory remedies also available to them under law in addition to the proceedings under SARFAESI ACT.
(1) Where the eye-witnesses account is found credible, the medical opinion pointing to alternative possibilities cannot be accepted as
(2) Eye-witness account cannot be branded as liar. The maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in every thing)
has no application in India.
(3) Non-examination of independent witness would not be fatal to prosecution case when the eye-witness account is available.
(4) Improvements exaggerated when do not create serious doubt about the truthfulness and credibility of witnesses, evidence can be
accepted. Court can sift the chaff from the grain and find out the truth from testimony of witnesses.
(5) Investigation is not the solitary area for judicial scrutiny in criminal trials and conclusion of trial in the case cannot be
allowed to depend solely on the probity of investigation.
(6) To constitute offence u/s 149 IPC, common object of unlawful assembly is normally gathered from circumstances such as time
and place of gathering in a secluded area at odd hours.
(i)Provisions of Section 144B (6) viii) creates a mandatory obligation upon the department to follow the procedure prescribed.
(ii)The word "Shall" in Section 144B(6)(viii) of the Income Tax Act should be read as must so far as giving an assessee a personal hearing.
(iii)Refusal of a personal hearing inspite of a request made under Section 144B (6) (viii) amounts to violation of the principles of Natural Justice.
If the explanation offered for condonation of delay is concocted or stands falsified by conduct, the courts should not liberally condone the delay.
Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party.
It is the onus on the party which alleges fraud in execution of a will to prove the element of fraud.
Person who is a gainful employee cannot be said to be dependent on the earning of his father for getting compassionate appointment with
Master of Human Resource Management (MHRM) is not equivalent to Master of Business Administration (MBA) and determination of equivalence does not lie within domain of writ Court, it is a matter for recruiting authority to determine.
The claim of a "married daughter" would fall in the second part of the clause 9.3.3 of National Coal Wage Agreement, like the "widowed daughter" and, therefore, before providing an appointment to her as a dependent employment, an enquiry is needed for in order to ascertain whether she is wholly dependent on the earnings of the deceased employee or not as per the condition required under the said clause.
A bare bald averment in WS or in the memo of appeal by itself would not be sufficient to infer that the landlord has an alternative accommodation. it has also to be proved and established by the tenant specifically.
Merely because the FIR was lodged belatedly by itself is not crucial to disbelieve the version of the claimants under Motor Vehicle Act.
Registration of the FIR even though belatedly is sufficient to accept the occurrence of the accident.
The FIR and chargesheet, coupled with the other evidence on record, inarguably establishes the occurrence of the fatal accident and also point towards the negligence of the respondent No. 2 in causing the said accident.
While deciding cases arising out of motor vehicle accidents, the standard of proof to be borne in mind must be of preponderance of probability and not the strict standard of proof beyond all reasonable doubt which is followed in criminal cases.
High Court of Chhattisgarh
National Highway -130, Bodri Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 495220
: January 27, 2023.
Site is Designed and Maintained by High Court Computer Cell Bilaspur. Hosted by National Informatics Centre (NIC), Ministry of Electronics & Information Technology, Government of India.