1. Mohansingh VS Amar Singh - 01 Sep 98

Important Point1. Permission granted under Section 21 of the Delhi Rent Control Act for limited period tenancy cannot be challenged after the expiry of the tenancy.2. Copies of petition, counter, rejoinder etc. should be served on the other side in advance getting acknowledgment of service endorsed on such papers.

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958-Section 21-Tenancy for limited period-Tenant and landlord ... ... (ii) Civil Court Practice and Procedure-Delhi Rent Control Act, ... Rule 23 of the rules framed under the Act provides that the controller and the Rent Control Tribunal are ... Rent Control Act”. ... An appeal was filed by the landlord under Section 38 of the Act before the Rent Control Tribunal, Delhi. ... is not a party to the limited period of tenancy created under Section 21 of Delhi Rent Control Act on 30.6.81”.

India - Supreme Court

2. S. Mani VS T. K. Jacob - 23 Apr 82

Appeal from the controllers order not maintainable.

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960-Section 19 - Petition for eviction -Decision of Rent Controller not to try ... Control) Act. ... Gokal Chand, the Supreme Court in dealing with a similar provision of the Delhi Rent Control Act observed as follows- p align ... Shanti Devi and Ors., the Supreme Court dealing with the similar provisions of the Delhi and Ajmer Rent Control Act observed as follows

India - Madras

3. Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd. ) VS Union of India - 26 Sep 18

MAIN POINTSPer majority ‘Benefits’ and ‘services’ as mentioned in Section 7 should be those which have the colour of some kind of subsidies etc., namely, welfare schemes of the Government whereby Government is doling out such benefits which are targeted at a particular deprived class. The expenditure thereof has to be drawn from the Consolidated Fund of India.CBSE, NEET, JEE, UGC etc. cannot make the requirement of Aadhaar mandatory.For the enrolment of children under the Aadhaar Act, it would be essential to have the consent of their parents/guardian.On attaining the age of majority, such children who are enrolled under Aadhaar with the consent of their parents, shall be given the right to exit from Aadhaar, if they so choose.Insofar as the school admissions of children are concerned, requirement of Aadhaar would not be compulsory as it is neither a service nor subsidy. Further, having regard to the fact that a child between the age of 6 to 14 years has the fundamental right to education under Article 21A of the Constitution, school admission cannot be treated as ‘benefit’ as well.Benefits to children between 6 to 14 years under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, likewise, shall not require mandatory Aadhaar enrolment.For availing the benefits of other welfare schemes which are covered by Section 7 of the Aadhaar Act, though enrolment number can be insisted, it would be subject to the consent of the parents.No child shall be denied benefit of any of these schemes if, for some reasons, he/she is not able to produce the Aadhaar number and the benefit shall be given by verifying the identity on the basis of any other documents. Regulation 27(1) struck down, Regulation 26 needs suitable amendment, Section 33(1) of the Aadhaar Act read down. Section 33(2) struck down.That portion of Section 57 which enables body corporate and individual to seek authentication struck down, All matters pertaining to an individual do not qualify as being an inherent part of right to privacy. Aadhaar Act meets the tests of proportionality and balancingSection 2(d) struck down.Section 29 in fact imposes a restriction on sharing information and is, therefore, valid as it protects the interests of Aadhaar number holders. Other provisions of Aadhaar Act including Section 59 held to be valid, Aadhaar Act meets the concept of Limited Government, Good Governance and Constitutional Trust.Aadhaar Act is validly passed as a ‘Money Bill’.Section 139AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 held valid.Per Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. (Dissenting) The phrase “shall be final” used under Article 110(3) aims at avoiding any controversy on the issue as to whether a Bill is a Money Bill, with respect to the Rajya Sabha and before the President. The language used in Article 110(3) does not exclude judicial review of the Speaker’s decision. This also applies to Article 199(3).The immunity from judicial review provided to parliamentary proceedings under Article 122 is limited to instances involving “irregularity of procedure”. Validity of proceedings in Parliament or a State Legislature can be subject to judicial review when there is a substantive illegality or a constitutional violation.Article 255 has no relation with the decision of the Speaker on whether a Bill is a Money Bill. Decisions in Mohd Saeed Siddiqui and Yogendra Kumar are overruled.The existence of and the role of the Rajya Sabha, as an institution of federal bicameralism in the Indian Parliament, constitutes a part of the basic structure of the Constitution. A Bill, which has provisions which fall within subclauses (a) to (g) of Article 110(1) and provisions which fall outside their scope, will not qualify to be a Money Bill. Section 7 fails to fulfil the requirement of a Money Bill. The provisions of the Aadhaar Act do not lie within the scope of sub-clauses (a) to (g) of Article 110(1). The Aadhaar Act declared unconstitutional for failing to meet the necessary requirements to have been certified as a Money Bill under Article 110(1).Doctrine of pith and substance is used to examine whether the legislature has the competence to enact a law with regard to any of the three Lists in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution. The doctrine cannot be invoked to declare whether a Bill satisfies the requirements set out in Article 110 of the Constitution to be certified a Money Bill. There is a legitimate state aim in maintaining a system of identification to ensure that the welfare benefits provided by the State reach the beneficiaries who are entitled, without diversion.Adequate norms must be laid down for each step from the collection to retention of biometric data. Sections 29(1) and (2) of the Act create a distinction between two classes of information (core biometric information and identity information), which are integral to individual identity and require equal protection. Section 29(4) suffers from over breadth.Sections 2(g), (j), (k) and (t) suffer from over breadth. There is no clarity on how an individual is supposed to update his/her biometric information, in case the biometric information mismatches with the data stored in CIDR. The Aadhaar project has failed to account for and remedy the flaws in its framework and design which has led to serious instances of exclusion of eligible beneficiaries. The Aadhaar project violates widely recognized data minimisation principle.The architecture of Aadhaar poses a risk of potential surveillance activities through the Aadhaar database. The protection of the data of 1.2 billion citizens is a question of national security and cannot be subjected to the mere terms and conditions of a normal contract.The Act does not place any institutional accountability upon UIDAI to protect the database of citizens’ personal information. The Aadhaar Act is also silent on the liability of UIDAI and its personnel in case of their non-compliance of the provisions of the Act or the regulations.Section 47 of the Act violates citizens’ right to seek remedies. No substantive provisions, such as those providing data minimization, have been laid down as guiding principles for the oversight mechanism provided under Section 33(2), which permits disclosure of identity information and authentication records in the interest of national security.Since Section 57 is manifestly arbitrary, it suffers from overbreadth and violates Article 14.Section 7 suffers from overbreadth since the broad definitions of the expressions ‘services and ‘benefits’ enable the government to regulate almost every facet of its engagement with citizens under the Aadhaar platform. Section 7 is therefore arbitrary and violative of Article 14 in relation to the inclusion of services and benefits as defined.The legitimate aim of the State can be fulfilled by adopting less intrusive measures as opposed to the mandatory enforcement of the Aadhaar scheme as the sole repository of identification. When Aadhaar is seeded into every database, it becomes a bridge across discreet data silos, which allows anyone with access to this information to re-construct a profile of an individual’s life. This is contrary to the right to privacy and poses severe threats due to potential surveillance.The State has failed to satisfy that the targeted delivery of subsidies which animate the right to life entails a necessary sacrifice of the right to individual autonomy, data protection and dignity when both these rights are protected by the Constitution.Section 59 seeks to retrospectively validate the actions of the Central Government done prior to the Aadhaar Act pursuant to Notifications dated 28 January 2009. and 12 September 2015. Section 59 does not validate actions of the state governments or of private entities. Moreover, the notification of 2009 did not authorise the collection of biometric data. Consequently, the validation of actions taken under the 2009 notification by Section 59 does not save the collection of biometric data prior to the enforcement of the Act. Section 59 fails to meet the test of a validating law.Since the Aadhaar Act itself is now held to be unconstitutional, the seeding of Aadhaar to PAN under Article 139AA does not stand independently.The 2017 amendments to the PMLA Rules fail to satisfy the test of proportionality. The decision to link Aadhaar numbers with mobile SIM cards is neither valid nor constitutional. The biometric information and Aadhaar details collected by Telecom Service Providers shall be deleted forthwith and no use of the said information or details shall be made by TSPs or any agency or person or their behalf.Defiance of judicial orders (both interim and final) be it by the government or by citizens negates the basis of the rule of law. The Aadhaar Act, the Rules and Regulations framed under it, and the framework prior to the enactment of the Act are unconstitutional.The existing data which has been collected shall not be destroyed for a period of one year. During this period, the data shall not be used for any purpose whatsoever. At the end of one year, if no fresh legislation has been enacted by the Union government in conformity with the principles enunciated in this judgment, the data shall be destroyed.Per Ashok Bhushan, J. (Concurring)Requirement under Aadhaar Act to give one's demographic and biometric information does not violate fundamental right of privacy.The provisions of Aadhaar Act requiring demographic and biometric information from a resident for Aadhaar Number pass threefold test as laid down in Puttaswamy (supra) case, hence cannot be said to be unconstitutional.Collection of data, its storage and use does not violate fundamental Right of Privacy.Aadhaar Act does not create an architecture for pervasive surveillance.Aadhaar Act and Regulations provides protection and safety of the data received from individuals.Section 7 of the Aadhaar is constitutional. The State while enlivening right to food, right to shelter etc. envisaged under Article 21 cannot encroach upon the right of privacy of beneficiaries nor former can be given precedence over the latter.Provisions of Section 29 is constitutional and does not deserves to be struck down.Section 33 cannot be said to be unconstitutional as it provides for the use of Aadhaar data base for police investigation nor it can be said to violate protection granted under Article 20(3).Section 47 cannot be held to be unconstitutional on the ground that it does not allow an individual who finds that there is a violation of Aadhaar Act to initiate any criminal process.Section 57, to the extent, which permits use of Aadhaar by the State or any body corporate or person, in pursuant to any contract to this effect is unconstitutional and void. Thus, the last phrase in main provision of Section 57, i.e. “or any contract to this effect” is struck down.Section 59 has validated all actions taken by the Central Government under the notifications dated 28.01.2009 and 12.09.2009 and all actions shall be deemed to have been taken under the Aadhaar Act.Parental consent for providing biometric information under Regulation 3 & demographic information under Regulation 4 has to be read for enrolment of children between 5 to 18 years to uphold the constitutionality of Regulations 3 & 4 of Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016.Rule 9 as amended by PMLA (Second Amendment) Rules, 2017 is not unconstitutional and does not violate Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21 & 300A of the Constitution and Sections 3, 7 & 51 of the Aadhaar Act. Further Rule 9 as amended is not ultra vires to PMLA Act, 2002.Circular dated 23.03.2017 being unconstitutional is set aside.Aadhaar Act has been rightly passed as Money Bill. The decision of Speaker certifying the Aadhaar Bill, 2016 as Money Bill is not immuned from Judicial Review.Section 139AA of Income Tax Act, 1961 does not breach fundamental Right of Privacy as per Privacy Judgment in Puttaswamy case.Aadhaar Act does not violate the interim orders passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 494 of 2012 and other Writ Petitions.

privacy, informational privacy and privacy of choice – First deals with physical body of the person, second Also includes right to control ... – Decisional autonomy – Informational control – Not exhaustive – Informational privacy confers right to an individual to disseminate ... does not get any information related to the IP address or the GPS location of authentication – Authority or any entity under its control ... control. ... Said argument was rejected. ... There is authority against the acceptability of the argument that the word "final" occurring in Paragraph 6(1) has the effect of

India - Supreme Court

4. Anilkumar Vaikuthlal Patel VS O. L. OF A'BAD Jubili Spinning & Mfg. Mills Co. - 26 Mar 20

As the lease is not registered, the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act would not apply and the Official Liquidator is required to be treated as a statutory tenant and the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act") would apply.

as well as the Transfer of Property Act because it is not registered - it also violates the provisions of Rent Act because Calico ... as well as the Transfer of Property Act because it is not registered - it also violates the provisions of Rent Act because Calico ... adjournments in other cases on ground of pendency of this case - Thus no valid ground has been made out for releasing matter at stage ... Rent Control Act, 59 of 1958." ... Control Act. ... Control Act.

India - Gujarat

5. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS MOHD. PARVEZ ABDUL KAYUUM ETC. - 05 Jul 19

In a case of conspiracy u/s 3, POTA, participation of all conspirators from beginning to end not necessary. Knowledge of the murder or attack on the victim in particular is not a sine qua non.No witness can give a categorical statement as to posture of the deceased or the assailants at the time of firing and it is not for the autopsy doctor to give a vivid description as to how the deceased reacted at the time when gunshots were fired upon him.Ocular evidence can be discarded only when medical evidence completely improbabilises the ocular evidence and not otherwise. Court should not adopt hyper­technical approach in assessing the evidence. Minor discrepancies not going to heart of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witness should be ignored.Mobile call records and email records are corroborative evidence and strong circumstantial evidence.High Court not examining each and every argument of the parties because of the volume of the material - Not a proper approach. Certain confessions made to police officers are admissible u/s 32, POTA subject to safeguards mentioned in the section.To discredit the confessaional statement it is necessary to put it to the person recording the same in cross-examination.Cross­examination is not a matter of procedure but a matter of substance. Mere possession of fire arms in a notified area is an offence u/s 4, POTA.A member of the Executive Committee of CPIL cannot appear as counsel in a writ petition filed by the CPIL.

nbsp;(s) Administration of justice - Judicial propriety - High Court not examining each and every argument ... during hearing of criminal appeals on same/similar grounds, oraying for further investigation - Certain documents for writ petition ... evidence. (70, 71, 74, 75, 76) ... (k) Indian Evidence Act ... The police control room was informed by IGP Mr. Suman. ... Maljibhai Rabari (PW­34) vide document Exhibit 311. ... Mohmed Aizaz Ali, Principal Scientific Officer (Document) CFSL, New Delhi vide report (Exhibit 524) and he had also given a positive

India - Supreme Court

6. Rasheed Ahmad Usmani VS DLF Ltd. (through its Chairman & MD) DLF Centre - 02 Jul 19

1. It is also the settled proposition of law that the facts which can be proved by documents, no oral testimony is needed. 2. A person cannot depose on behalf of another person without being so authorized. 3. The existence of element of coercion being used upon each and every of such complainants who have taken possession and executed conveyance deed, cannot be presumed.4. Since conveyance deed is not a service contract the forceful execution of this document cannot be challenged under the Consumer Protection Act. 5. The burden therefore is upon such person i.e. the complainants to prove such facts by leading evidences which show that the consent given by such person while entering into a settlement, was not free. 6. Consumer should have an existing right under the service contract to claim deficiency in service. 7. It is for the complainants to prove that the contractual terms of agreement are unfair and unreasonable.

delayed—Delay had been acknowledged by the opposite parties—Builders had also offered to these complainants the delayed compensation—The argument ... and executed conveyance deed, cannot be presumed—Since conveyance deed is not a service contract the forceful execution of this document ... of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1972—Sections 6 and 7—Indian Contract Act in Sections 14 to ... It is at the stage of final arguments that the plea of undue influence, coercion, force ... It is at the stage of final arguments that the plea of undue influence, coercion, force ... It was for the reason beyond the control of the opposite parties that the possession could

India - Consumer

7. Lahorian Di Hatti VS Shyam Lal Meher Chand Jain Huf - 31 Jul 14

Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Section 14(1)(e), 25B(8) - Eviction - Bonafide necessity - Additional evidence ... of final arguments no such plea was raised - Once there was no such plea is urged earlier, this plea was not decided before the ... second floor above the suit premises are available to the landlord and which would be alternative suitable accommodation - Till the stage ... This revision is thereafter filed under Section 25-B(8) of the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 ... Control Acts of different States, including in Section 14 of the Delhi Rent Control Act, and in view of non-obstante clause nothing ... Controller i.e. the stage of pleadings or the stage of evidence and right till the stage of final arguments such a plea was not

India - Delhi

8. A. M. FAISAL S/O. THANGALAKATH MITHAL ABDULLA VS TRICHUR CORPORATION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MUNICIPAL OFFICE - 24 Mar 21

Rent control – Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.

Control Petition has been filed by landlord, claiming arrears of rent, and that he has also filed a suit - Case construction was ... Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226, 137 and 145 - Kerala Municipalities Act, 1994 - Code of Civil ... Procedure,1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 and 114 - claiming arrears of rent - Corporation had taken action to demolish the unauthorised ... A Rent Control Petition has been filed by the landlord, claiming arrears of rent, and that ... No such document is seen produced. ... In the case on hand, the landlord has not given any such permission nor any document has

India - Kerala

9. Akbarbhai Kesarbhai Sipai VS Mohanbhai Ambabhai Patel Since Decd. thro his Heirs - 12 Jul 19

(1) Registered sale deed or any other registered document is not a public document but a private document. (2) There is a basic difference in admissibility and probative value of documents.(3) Mere production of a certified copy of a document registered may not be enough to prove execution of document.

the Registration Act containing the copy of the registered document). ... A deed of conveyance or other document executed by any person is not an act nor record of an act of any sovereign authority or of ... document but a private document. ... The argument is not well founded. ... The argument of Mr. ... are unable on account of circumstances beyond their control to place before the Court primary evidence as required under Section

India - Current Civil Cases

10. Harshad Govardhan Sondagar VS International Assets Reconstruction - 03 Apr 14

MAIN POINTSSection 13(13) of the SARFAESI Act, 2002 will override section 65A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.Therefore unless a lease is validly determined in terms of section 111, possession of the lessee would be lawful. Possession of leased asset, lease of which is not determined, is not required to be taken u/s 14 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate has no power to take possession of the secured asset from such a lessee and hand over the same to the secured creditor.In case of valid lease, the secured creditor will be entitled to receive any money due or which may become due, including rent, from the lessee to the borrower.Orders of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate or the District Magistrate u/s 14 of SARFAESI Act can be challenged before High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution.Lessee has no remedy u/s 17 of SARFAESI Act.In absence of documentary proof of lease, the possession cannot be taken to be more than one year.

the borrower – In such cases the secured creditor will be entitled to receive any money due or which may become due, including rent ... , 2002 – Section 35 – Act has overriding effect – Therefore Section 13(13) of the Act will override section ... (a) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 7 and 8, and a ... In the State of Maharashtra, the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 is in force and this Act applies to premises let for the purposes ... Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act is titled `Jurisdiction of courts' and it provides that the courts named therein ` ... Even otherwise, Section 33 of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act vests jurisdiction in the courts named therein to decide disputes

India - Supreme Court