TIER-1

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   By virtue of probate of will in 1990, Mr. A in 2013 applied for registration of transmission of shares under Section 58 of Companies Act, 2013 with an application for condonation of delay.   The Ld. CLB condoned the delay and High Court upheld the same. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Companies Act, 2013 is enforced in the phase manner. Though Section 58 was enforced in 2013 but the appeal provision to NCLT, NCLAT was enforced in 2016. The Section 433 which enables application of limitation act was also enforced from 2016 only. Hence, as on 2013, the CLB was court only for limited purpose but not a ‘court’ for purpose of limitation because the provision of limitation act, 1963 was not made applicable to CLB under the Companies Act, 1956. Meaning thereby, the CLB was not empowered to condone the delay.     1.     In order to ensure a smooth transition into the new framework, the Act, 2013 was implemented in...

  Shubham Budhiraja [1] A filed an Eviction Petition against B under Delhi Rent Control Act. The summons received unserved however A’s application for substituted service was allowed and B was served through publication. B appeared and filed application under Section 151 CPC for complete paper-book however in the meantime he received the certified copies and filed the leave to defend. The Ld. ARC dismissed the leave to defend as filed beyond 15 days. Hence, the revision petition. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court held as under: [2]   1.     Section 25B of the DRC Act, introduced by the Amendment Act was enacted with an objective to lay down a special procedure for speedy disposal of an Eviction Petition filed on the ground of bona fide requirement, so as to ensure that a landlord with an honest and genuine need is not subjected to protracted litigation. In view the aforesaid objective, Section 25B of the DRC Act, is in the nature of a summary procedure and co...

  Shubham Budhiraja [1] A filed a suit against B. While suit was pending, A moved an application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, 1908 for permission to file sign & attested copy of the verification clause of the plaint. The Ld. Trial Court allowed the same. B challenged the same before Hon’ble High Court under Article 227. The Hon’ble High Court held as under: [2]   1.     It is trite that mere framing of issues does not mean commencement of trial. The trial would commence only once the first witness steps into the box and tenders’ chief examination affidavit. That being so, the argument that the amendment sought was hit by proviso to Order VI Rule 17 CPC is not correct   2.     What was sought and permitted by the trial court was only a rectification of irregularity and not a substantive amendment. As correctly observed by learned trial court, verification under Order VI Rule 15 CPC is a separate solemn affirmation by the party as...

  Shubham Budhiraja [2]   On presumption of legally enforceable debt 1.     That once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumption under Section 118 of the NI Act that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the holder of the cheque received the said cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability arises against the accused   2.     The presumption contemplated under Section 139 of the NI Act, is a rebuttable presumption. However, the initial onus of proving that the cheque is not in discharge of any debt or other liability is on the accused/drawer of the cheque.   3.     The presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the NI Act can be rebutted by the accused examining the Income Tax Officer and bank officials of the complainant/drawee.   4.     The accused can rely upon the evidence adduce...

    Shubham Budhiraja [1]   Criminal Case registered against A & B under the NDPS Act. It is the Prosecution case that Ganja was found while raid at their houses where both A&B were found with packets of Ganja. This was video graphed as well. The CD was marked as exhibit with 65B Certificate and Videographer deposed as well. The Trial Court hold A&B as guilty whereas High Court set aside the judgment and directed for re-trial because both videos should have been played every-time when witnesses were examined to ask them about contents of it, which was not done. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under [2] :   1.     The CD is an electronic record and once the requirement of Section 65B is fulfilled it becomes an admissible piece of evidence, like a document, and the video recorded therein is akin to contents of a document which can be seen and heard to enable the Court to draw appropriate inference(s).   2.   ...

  Shubham Budhiraja [1]   A filed a suit for Partition against B. The Ld. It is the case of the Plaintiff that his grandfather had 2 sons, X&Y. The X had 2 wives, P&Q.   The first wife, P is the mother of A. The Second Wife, Q and his son, B are the Defendants. Based on change in revenue entries, B declined to acknowledge A’s joint possession in the property. To demand his share, A filed the Partition Suit. The Trial Court dismissed the suit whereas High Court in first appeal allowed the suit. Hence, Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:   1.     In the present case, there is a paucity of documentary and contemporaneous material to conclusively establish the marital relationship between the deceased and the mother of the plaintiffs.   2.     The testimony of P.W.2 is the sole evidence adduced in support of the existence of such a relationship. Accordingly, the evidentiary value of the testimon...