Power of Attorney Holder cannot depose in lieu of the person who attorney s/he is

It is a settled legal proposition that the power of attorney holder cannot depose in place of the principal. Provisions of Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC empower the holder of the power of attorney to  "act" on behalf of the principal. The word "acts" employed therein is confined only to "acts" done by the power-of-attorney holder, in exercise of the power granted to him by virtue of the instrument. The term "acts", would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power-ofattorney holder has preferred any "acts" in pursuance of the power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for acts done by the principal, and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of a matter, as regards which, only the principal can have personal knowledge and in respect of which, the principal is entitled to be crossexamined. (See: Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1441; Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217; M/S Shankar Finance and Investment v. State of A.P & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 422; and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512).

Relief of Rectification

Subhadra & Ors. v. Thankam, AIR 2010 SC 3031, this Court while deciding upon whether the  agreement suffers from any ambiguity and whether rectification is needed, held that when the description
of the entire property has been given and in the face of the matters being beyond ambiguity, the question  of rectification in terms of Section 26 of the Act would, thus, not arise. The provisions of Section 26 of the Act would be attracted in limited cases. The provisions of this Section do not have a general  application. These provisions can be attracted in the cases only where the ingredients stated in the Section
are satisfied. The relief of rectification can be claimed where it is through fraud or a mutual mistake of the  parties that real intention of the parties is not expressed in relation to an instrument.

 

(Also see: State of Karnataka & Anr. v. K. K. Mohandas &  etc, AIR 2007 SC 2917)

No application lies in disposed of writ petition

Nazma v. Javeda @ Anjum, 2013 (1) SCC 376

Courts have no power of review in criminal matter except carrying out typographical or clerical errors. Practice of entertaining miscellaneous applications after disposal of main petition strongly deprecated.

Scope of Contempt Jurisdiction

Contempt court is precluded from adjudicating on the merits of a controversy by passing supplemental order.
VM Manohar Prasad v. N Ratnam Raju, (2004) 13 SCC 610

See also: (2004) 7 SCC 261

Judgment on Costs

http://www.stpl-india.in/SCJFiles/2011_STPL(Web)_931_SC.pdf

 

Sanjeev Kumar Jain v. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust

If interim order is not specifically discharged, no need to have it specifically recalled

(2005) LCD (1) 661

Unauthorized occupation of ponds and public lands

Complaints against unauthorized occupation over the public ponds or other similar public lands, D.M. should take all required actions.
Judgment/Order - PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. 63380 of 2012 Judgment/Order Dated - 6/12/2012 at Allahabad  
Title - Prem Singh Vs. The State Of U.P. And Others 
Coram - Hon'ble Shiva Kirti Singh,Acting Chief Justice and Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.

If the foundational order is bad, it cannot be corrected subsequently

In State of Orissa & Anr. v. Mamta Mohanty, (2011) 3 SCC 436, this Court has held that any appointment made in contravention of the statutory requirement i.e. eligibility, cannot be  approved and once an appointment is bad at its inception, the same cannot be preserved, or protected, merely because a person has been employed for a long time.

If Land Acquisition is bad, or lapsed, state should return the land

2012(7)ADJ398 Bunda v. State UP

the Government land and/or Panchayat land is normally required to be disposed of by public auction.

As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Parashram Thakur Dass and Ors. v. Ram Chand and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0173/1982 : [1982]3SCR288 , Netai Bag and Ors. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0604/2000 : AIR2000SC3313 ., the Government land and/or Panchayat land is normally required to be disposed of by public auction.