UCP - Certificate of Posting

Subhash Chandra v. Bihar, 1995 Supp 1 SCC 325 - when some important communication is sent, the best way is to either lodge the same personally or send by RP and not by UCP


Shiv Kumar v. Haryana 1994 4 SCC 445 - it is not safe to decide a controversy at hand on the basis of the certificate of posting as it is not difficult to get such postal seals at any time.


LMS Ummu Saleema v. BB Gujral, AIR 1981 SC 1191, presumption in evidence act regarding sending of post is only a presumption that it has been delivered and not an inevitable conclusion

Imposition of Penalty - Discretion

Cabot International Capital Corporation v. SEBI, Appeal No. 36/2000 (Order dated May 04, 2001) - even if a violation (SEBI) is proved, to award a penalty is within the subjective satisfaction of the Adjudicating Officer.  See Bombay HC order dated March 3, 2004 in Appeal No. 7/2001 (SEBI v. Cabot...)

Judicial Discipline - Law of Precedents

Official Liquidator v. Dayanand, 2008 10 SCC 1
Mansukh Stock Broker . SEBI decided on January 10, 2011 (Appeal No. 194 of 2010)

vehicle not transferred on the date of accident, no insurable interest

Complainant is not entitled to insured sum because as on the date of accident the vehicle was not transferred in the name of the complainant.  Therefore, it cannot be said that the complainant had any insurable interest in the vehicle. In terms of S 157 of the MV Act, the deemed transfer of insurance vehicle is limited to  third party risk and not to others.  NIA v. Chandrakant Bhujang Rao, II (2010) CPJ 170 (NC) (relying on Supreme Court  1996 (1) SCC 221.)

Change in Director / Liability of the Company

A company must take steps to see that it is aware of all the changes that it has to notify to the Registrar, and if it fails to do so, then the company becomes liable for default. [Public Prosecutor v. Coimbatore National Bank Ltd. (1943) 13 Comp Cas 50 (Mad); see also Trichinopally Mills Ltd, In re (1941) 11 Com Cas 4 (Mad)].

Section 303 of the Companies Act, 1956

http://indiankanoon.org/doc/141028/

Impossibility

The performance of an act may not be literally impossible but it may be impracticable and useless from the point of view of the object and purpose which the parties had in view; and if an untoward event or change of circumstances totally upsets the very foundation upon which the parties rested their bargain, it can very well be said that the promisor finds it impossible to do the act which he promised to do.

AIR 1954 SCR 310

Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

Contempt for breach for permanent injunction and Rule 2A of Order 39, CPC

MCGM v, Bhikanlal Nanakchand Sharma, (2007) Vol. 109 (1) Bom. L.R. 0430

Cheriyan Mathew v. Kuriakose Peter, (2004) 13 SCC 637

 

 

Rule 2A of Order 39 is not available for breach of permanent injunction. (See also AIR 1987 Guj 160); (2002) 3 BCR 161.

 

Also doubtful if Rule 2A could apply to breach of undertaking given to the court.