Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

Succession To Mutawalliship By Descendant Through Female Line Not Barred[Md. Abrar vs. Meghalaya Board of Wakf] The Supreme Court held that there is no legal bar on cognatic heirs of the waqif from succeeding to mutawalliship. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi reiterated that in order to establish a claim of hereditary succession to mutawalli-ship, the intention of the waqif, as manifested either through the directions given in the waqf deed or the creation of a custom, is of paramount importance. Female Descendant Cannot Be Mutawalli If Wakif Intended To Exclude Them [Syeda Nazira Khatoon (D) vs. Syed Zahiruddin Ahmed Baghdadi] The Supreme Court observed that, though women can also hold the office of Mutawalli under Mohammedan law, but if the wakif intended to create the Mutawalliship only in favour of male descendants, a female descendant cannot stake any claim to the Mutawalliship of the wakf estate. The bench comprising Justice NV Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice Ajay Rastogi observed thus while affirming the cancellation of the appointment of one NaziraKhatoon as the permanent Mutawalli of a wakf estate. Specific Performance- Illegal Agreement To Sell Can't Be Enforced In Favour Of Plaintiff [Narayanamma vs. Govindappa] The Supreme Court observed that an agreement contrary to law cannot be enforced by the court in favour of plaintiff in a suit for specific performance, even if the defendant, who was also party to such illegality stands benefitted by it. Police Cannot Attach Immovable Property Under Sec.102 CrPC During Investigation [Nevada Properties Private Limited V. State Of Maharashtra And Anr] The Supreme Court held that police does not have the power to attach immovable property during investigation under Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment was delivered by the bench comprising CJI RanjanGogoi, Justices Deepak Gupta and Sanjiv Khanna. However, police does have authority to freeze moveable properties of the accused, clarified the bench. Crucial Date For Deciding Bonafide Requirement Of Landlord Is The Date Of Application For Eviction [D. Sasi Kumar vs. Soundararajan] The crucial date for deciding the bonafide requirement of landlord is the date of application for eviction, the Supreme Court reiterated. The High Court, in this case, while setting aside the concurrent eviction orders passed by Rent Control Authorities under, had observed that the bonafide occupation as sought should be not only on the date of the petition but it should continue to be there on the date of final adjudication of rights. Section 34 Arbitration Act- Additional Evidence Can Be Adduced Only In Exceptional Cases [Canara Nidhi Limited vs. M. Shashikala] The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act will not ordinarily require anything beyond the record that was before the arbitrator and only in exceptional case, additional evidence can be permitted to be adduced. The bench comprising Justice R. Banumathi and Justice AS Bopanna was considering an appeal against a High Court order which grant opportunity to a party to Section 34 Proceedings to adduce additional evidence. Chief Judicial Magistrates Competent To Entertain Applications U/s 14 SARFAESI Act[Authorized Officer, Indian Bank v D Visalakshi and other] In an important judgment, the Supreme Court held that a Chief Judicial Magistrate is equally competent to deal with the application moved by the secured creditor under Section 14 of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act (SARFAESI). Section 138 NI Act: Legal Heirs Of Deceased Convict Can Challenge Conviction [M. Abbas Haji vs. T.N. Channakeshava] The Supreme Court held that legal heirs of a deceased accused convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act have a right to challenge the conviction of their predecessor only to show that he was not guilty of any offence. Donee Not Required To Examine Attesting Witness If There Is No Specific Denial Of Execution Of Gift [GovindbhaiChhotabhai Patel vs. Patel RamanbhaiMathurbhai] The Supreme Court held that, when the execution of the gift deed was not specifically denied in the suit filed, it is not necessary for the Donee to examine one of the attesting witnesses in terms of proviso to Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Section 102 CrPC- Expression 'Any Property' Does Not Include 'Immovable Property' [Nevada Properties Private Limited Vs. State Of Maharashtra] The Supreme Court held that the expression 'any property' appearing in Section 102 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not include 'immovable property'. The bench comprising Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice Deepak...

Supreme Court Weekly Round-Up

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags