TIER-1

    Shubham Budhiraja [1] A filed a suit for eviction against B, tenant. While the suit was pending, A died. C, his son, filed application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC, 1908 seeking right to sue as legal representative. The tenant objected to this on the ground that C is not legal heir and his name cannot be substituted. He is an adopted son and there is no adoption deed. The Ld. Trial Court dismissed the tenant’s objection. The Hon’ble High Court affirming the trial court’s order held as under [2] :   1.     Order XXII Rule 3 CPC prescribes procedure in case of death of sole plaintiff or in case of death of one of the several plaintiffs and provides that on such death, the right to sue shall survive to the legal representative of the deceased-plaintiff.   2.     If one goes through the averments made in the eviction petition, it would lay bare that in the petition itself, the landlord had claimed that suit-shop, which is in p...

  Right to property is a valuable right & State is under obligation to make payment immediately without delay [1] Shubham Budhiraja [2] The Land in solan was acquired by notification for giving to Jaypee for mining purpose. The notification was challenged in HP HC. The HC dismisses the writ and held that acquisition for public purpose. Accordingly, the officer visits and determined compensation and paid. The owners filed for supplement amount which was granted by HC but not paid. The Jaypee has scheme of compromise arrangement under section 391 of 1956 act. The Hon'ble supreme court decided as to who has to pay the liability of owners as per scheme.   (i)           The Right to Property in our country is a net of intersecting rights which has been explained in Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Anr. v. Bimal Kumar Shah & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 968 .   (ii)        ...

  Mere fact that Opposite Party is a real estate company does not mean that flat was purchased for commercial purpose [1] Shubham Budhiraja [2] (i)                  To determine whether the goods purchased by a person (which would include a legal entity like a company) were for commercial purpose or not within the meaning of the Act would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.   (ii)                 However, ordinarily “commercial purpose” is understood to include manufacturing/industrial activity or business-to-business transactions between commercial entities. The purchase of the goods should have a close and direct nexus with a profit generating activity.   (iii)               If it is found that the dominant purpose behind ...

  Shubham Budhiraja [2]   1.      What has to be been seen simply is the date of registration of the FIR and the law as applicable as on the date of such registration. Trite it may sound, but settled position is that, the moment an FIR is registered under section 154 of the Cr.P.C., criminal investigative/administrative machinery is set in motion under Chapter XII thereof. Thus, if an FIR is registered prior to 01.07.2023 under the Cr.P.C., it would amount to a pending enquiry/investigation within the meaning of section 531(2)(a) of BNSS. The entire subsequent investigation procedure and even the trial procedure qua such an FIR shall then be governed by Cr.P.C. and not BNSS.   2.      It so transpires that learned counsel for the petitioner had though rightly filed the instant petition initially under Section 482 Cr.P.C., but on an objection raised by Registry of this Court, it was converted into one under section 528 of B...

  Whether unstamped agreement to sell executed in the year 1988 can be relied upon in suit for possession?   Under what circumstances, photocopy of agreement to sell can be relied upon as secondary evidence?   Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for possession against B on basis of agreement to sell executed in the year 1989. During the hearing, A filed IA for reading photocopy of agreement to sell as secondary evidence because he is not able to find the original agreement to sell. The Trial Court allowed the IA but in review rejected that because agreement to sell was insufficiently stamped therefore bar of section 35 of stamp act applies. The High Court confirmed the order. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that bar of Section 35 will not apply because amendment of 1990 wherein explanation was added to the stamp act was substantive in nature and therefore new obligation of stamping cannot be imposed on agreement of sell executed between A and B. [2] ...

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Mr. A subscribed to the chit tickets of chit fund company. The chit company stopped the business and Mr. A instituted consumer case seeking refund of deposits made in chit fund. The chit company took a plea that Mr. A is not a consumer because transaction is for commercial purpose. The Learned District Forum, Hon’ble State Commission and Hon’ble NCDRC favoured the complainant. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under [2] :   (i)              To file a complaint, one must be a complainant and for one to be a complainant, he must be a consumer. If a person fails to come within the definition of a consumer, he cannot be a complainant and therefore, such person cannot file a complaint under the Act.   (ii)            The definition of consumer has three parts. The significance of deconstructing the definition into three part...