TIER-1

  Shubham Budhiraja [2]   State of Maharashtra in exercise of the statutory power under Section5A granted exemption to certain industries from electricity duty in 1994. Later on, such exemptions were withdrawn on ground of budget deficit. The withdrawal of notification was challenged. The Hon’ble High Court set aside the notification for being arbitrary for making classification between different industries. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that notification is valid. The Respondent had no legal enforceable or vested right to claim exemption for indefinite time. In any case, state decision is in public interest.     1.       An exemption is by definition a freedom from an obligation which the exemptee is otherwise liable to discharge. It is a privilege granting an advantage not available to others.   2.     The recipient of a concession has no legally enforceable right against the Government to grant of a concession...

    Shubham Budhiraja [1]   The Homebuyers filed a consumer complaint against Builder. The NCDRC directed the Builder to handover the possession after obtaining the occupancy certificate with interest as compensation. The Builder challenged the same before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on the ground that NCDRC has exceeded its jurisdiction by granting beyond the contract. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:   1.     The jurisdiction of the consumer fora is traceable not merely to the contractual terms agreed between the parties but to the statute itself. Sections 12 and 22 of the Act empower the consumer fora, including the NCDRC to adjudicate complaints relating to deficiency in service and to grant appropriate reliefs.   2.     Section 22 expressly incorporates the powers under Sections 12, 13 and 14, thereby enabling the NCDRC to issue directions and award compensation for loss or injury caused to a consumer. The...

  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...