Website / newspaper is secondary evidence

Samant N. Balkrishna v. V. George Fernandes, (1969) 3 SCC 238

Recall application be filed only by the lawyer who had argued the case and not by subsequent counsel

Recall application be filed only by the lawyer who had argued the case and not by subsequent counsel

2006 9 ADJ 427

Caveat - to be reported even after 90 day period

2006 (1) ADJ 618 (All)

Once a caveat is lodged in writ, stamp reporter is bound to make a report about filing of the caveat - not competent to ignore caveat on the ground that 90 day period has lapsed

Election Process & Court Interference

Where the election process has started, it must come to its logical conclusion and once it has come to its logical conclusion by declaration of result of the election, the aggrieved person may challenge the election by filing the election petition or civil suit in accordance with law and this Hon'ble Court may not ordinarily interfere with the election under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid view has been expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case law reported in A.I.R. 1999 S.C. 1566 = 1998 (4) SCC 529 :: In Re: Umesh Shivappa Ambi & Others Vs. Angadi Shekara Basappa & Others, A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 1703 : In Re: K.K. Srivastava Vs. Bhupendra Kumar Jain, which has been relied upon and reiterated by this Hon'ble Court in the matter reported in (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1333 :In Re: Basant Prasad Srivastava & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Another, C.O.M. Shiksha Prasar Samiti Sagwar Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2008 (3) A.L.J. 329.

 

Judgments and Statute conflict

State of Maharashtra v. Kumari Tanuja, AIR 1999 SC 791 - where the state sought to overrule the high court judgment without altering or neutralising the legal basis thereof by producing relevant additional material, it was rightly held illegal by the high court.

Same in Haryana v. Karnal Cooperative Farmer's Society, (1993) 2 SCC 363

Mutation entry is proof of possession

Mutation entry is proof of possession, though not binding

It is prima facie indicator of holder of title

2012 (2) ALJ 732

Recovery of Public Debts

In view of the above, the law can be summarised to the effect that the recovery of the public dues must be made strictly in accrodance with the procedure prescrived by law. The liability of a surety is co-extensive with that of principal debtor. In case there are more than one surety the liability is to be divided equally among the sureties for unpaid amount of loan. Once the sale has been confirmed it cannot be set aside unless a fundamental procedural error has occured or sale certificate had been obtained by misrepresentation or fraud. 

 

The authority is duty bound to decide whether debt can be satisfied by sale of part of the property. Valuation is different from minimum price and must be done fairly.

 

2012 (4) ALJ 653 - Ram Kishun v. State of UP