June - 2012

• Cheque bouncing: When the cheque issued by office-bearer of the company stands dishonoured, then complaint against the office-bearer would not be maintainable unless it is also lodged against the company. The primary liability is of the company and the officers are only vicariously liable. Aneeta Hada v. Godfather Travels & Tours (P) Limited, (SC)(3J).

• Cognisance of criminal offences: Even though Sessions Courts are specified Courts under special enactments, like SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and others, still the requirement of committal of case only through Judicial Magistrate First Class cannot be ignored. However, in absence of proceedings for committal, it cannot be alleged that there has been violation of principles of natural justice to the extent that re-trial is warranted. Rattiram v. State of MP, (SC)(3J).

• Company law: The matters which are connected with the sanctioning and implementation of the scheme right from the date it is presented or the date from which the scheme is made effective, whichever is earlier, would be the matters which squarely fall under Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985. Accordingly, considering the language of the statute and being a subsequent enactment, held, provisions of this enactment would prevail over Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Raheja Universal Limited v. NRC Limited, (Supreme Court) (3J).

• Compounding of criminal offences: Even though offences under the Intellectual Property laws like Copyright, Patent, etc. are not mentioned under statutory provision providing for compounding, however considering the nature of such offences, held that they fall within the ambit of s.420 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, compounding of such offences is maintainable. Mohanlal v. State of MP (HC of MP).

• Delay: The law of limitation binds not only the private persons but also the government departments alike. Accordingly, defence of impersonal machinery and inherited bureaucratic methodology cannot be accepted in view of modern technologies being used and available. Absence of diligence by the department resulting in delay of 427 days in approaching the Supreme Court against order of High Court is not liable to be condoned. Postmaster General of India v. Living Media India Limited, (Supreme Court).

• Education: When the off-campus centre situated at Bangkok was not accorded recognition by Medical Council of India as well as Medical Council of Thailand, and the degrees awarded by Thailand are not automatically recognised in India, then graduates from Bangkok off-campus centre cannot be considered as eligible for admission to post-graduate courses. Mohamed Ibrahim v. Vinayaka Missions University, (Supreme Court).

• Elections: Since the provisions contained in Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 are a complete code by itself, therefore, in case of death of candidate of recognised party, the elections are required to be adjourned. However, if the candidate of registered political party or independent candidate expires after commencement of election process, then there is no statutory requirement to either adjourn the elections or mask the names in the polling machine. Jitu Patnaik v. Sanatan Mohakud, (Supreme Court).

• Forest Act: Specific provisions contained in this enactment would have overriding effect over the general provision contained in Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 with respect to seizure and release of vehicles. Accordingly, once the vehicle is seized, then it cannot be released by Judicial Magistrate First Class, and only the Appellate authorities mentioned therein or Sessions Courts can pass appropriate orders for release of vehicle. Ramniwas v. Game Range Chambal Sanctuary, (HC of MP).

• Land acquisition: When the land is acquired for purpose of housing society, it is necessary that prior to initiation of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 that there is proper framing of housing scheme by the society and there is prior approval of the scheme by the State government. In absence of fulfilment of both the requirements, it cannot be said that public purpose has been fulfilled, and the acquisition would stand vitiated. Bangalore City Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. State of Karnataka, (Supreme Court).

• Reasonable restriction: When the restriction was imposed on the President, Vice-president and Members of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) from appearing before the CESTAT after demitting office, than it would be a reasonable restriction as (a) all other forums are wide open (b) it uplifts the professional values and standards of advocacy. NK Bajpai v. Union of India, (Supreme Court).