SC: "Application for sanction to transfer lands of tenant u/s 43 of Tenancy Act cannot be kept pending indefinitely"

RECENTLY WHILE ADJUDICATING CIVIL APPEAL NO.4123 OF 2012, in respect of the provisions of Section: 43 of Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, The Hon'ble Apex Court has ruled certain landmark observations as such that: " The principal part of Section 43 lays down that the land which is purchased by a tenant under the various Sections referred to in Section 43 shall not be transferred in any manner except as permitted in Section 43. The original Section 43 did not contain any such exception. The Gujarat (Amendment) Act No. XVI of 1960 introduced the words “on payment of such amount as the State Government may by general or special order determine” in Section 43.Thus, the section now permits such a transfer by the tenant after the appropriate amount as determined by the State Government by a general or special order is paid by way of consideration, and only after a previous sanction is obtained from the Collector for effecting the transfer. Thus, the State Government has to lay down by general or special order the payment which is required to be made for such a transfer. If the agriculturist is seeking such a transfer, he has to make the necessary payment, and the transfer will be permitted only after a prior sanction is obtained from the Collector.The transfer is however not by way of a right." The Hob'ble Supreme Court of India has further remarked and ordered that " Such application cannot be kept pending indefinitely, but the Collector to decide such applications as far as possible within 90 days from the receipt of the application, on the lines of the judgment of this Court in Patel Raghav Natha (supra). In the event the application is not being decided within 90 days, we expect the Collector to record the reasons why the decision is getting belated. "

SC resolved the conflict between the conclusive proof envisaged under laws and the scientific proof accepted by the world.

The Supreme Court of India has recently resolved the sensitive dispute regading what kind of proof should be accepted in admeasuring the Justice, by observing in the matters of Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2014 that-" The presumption may afford legitimate means of arriving at an affirmative legal conclusion. While the truth or fact is known, in our opinion, there is no need or room for any presumption. Where there is evidence to the contrary, the presumption is rebuttable and must yield to proof. Interest of justice is best served by ascertaining the truth and the court should be furnished with the best available science and may not be left to bank upon presumptions, unless science has no answer to the facts in issue. In our opinion, when there is a conflict between a conclusive proof envisaged under law and a proof based on scientific advancement accepted by the world community to be correct, the latter must prevail over the former"

Supreme Court of India endorses again the accuracy of DNA test to determine paternity dispute of a child

Recently while disposing Criminal Appeal No.24 of 2014 in the matters of Nandalal v/s Lata, the Apex Court has again endorsed the accuracy of DNA test for the determination of the issue of paternity, when the husband and wife lived to gather or had opportunities to access. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid), which is found in the chromosomes of the cells of living beings, is the blueprint of an individual. When two unrelated people possessing the same DNA pattern have been compared, the chances of complete similarity are 1 in 30 billion to 300 billion. Given that the Earth’s population is about 5 billion, this test shall have accurate result. It has been recognized by this Court in the case of Kamti Devi (supra) that the result of a genuine DNA test is scientifically accurate."

SC: "The provision being in the domain of the Procedural Law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory"

While adjudicating with CIVIL APPEAL NO. 65 OF 2014 lodged by appellant SANDEEP THAPAR, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has made an important landmark observation recently about the provisions to prevent delay in proceedings and its corresponding procedural laws that " The purpose of providing the time schedule for filing the written statement under Order VIII, Rule 1 of CPC is to expedite and not to scuttle the hearing. The provision spells out a disability on the defendant. It does not impose an embargo on the power of the Court to extend the time.Though the language of the proviso to Rule 1 of Order VIII of the CPC is couched in negative form, it does not specify any penal consequences flowing from the non-compliance.The provision being in the domain of the Procedural Law, it has to be held directory and not mandatory. The power of the Court to extend time for filing the written statement beyond the time schedule provided by Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is not completely taken away.

Though Order VIII, Rule 1 of the CPC is a part of Procedural Law and hence directory, keeping in view the need for expeditious trial of civil causes which persuaded the Parliament to enact the provision in its present form, it is held that ordinarily the time schedule contained in the provision is to be followed as a rule and departure therefrom would be by way of exception. A prayer for extension of time made by the defendant shall not be granted just as a matter of routine and merely for asking, more so when the period of 90 days has expired. Extension of time may be allowed by way of an exception, for reasons to be assigned by the defendant and also be placed on record in writing, howsoever briefly, by the Court on its being satisfied. Extension of time may be allowed if it was needed to be given for the circumstances which are exceptional, occasioned by reasons beyond the control of the defendant and grave injustice would be occasioned if the time was not extended. Costs may be imposed and affidavit or documents in support of the grounds pleaded by the defendant for extension of time may be demanded, depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case.

SC:"while exercising powers under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Magistrate requires to exercise his minds"

The scope of the above mentioned provision came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court in several cases. In Maksud Saiyed case(supra)the Hon'ble Supreme Court examined the requirement of the application of min by the Magistrate before exercising jurisdiction under Section 156(3) and held that where a jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint filed in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 Cr.P.C., the Magistrate is required to apply his mind, in such a case, the Special Judge/Magistrate cannot refer the matter under Section 156(3) against a public servant without a valid sanction order. The application of mind by the Magistrate should be reflected in the order. The mere statement that he has gone through the complaint, documents and heard the complainant, as such, as reflected in the order, will not be sufficient. After going through the complaint, documents and hearing the complainant, what weighed with the Magistrate to order investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., should be reflected in the order.The same observation is again confirmed by the Apex Court yesterday, while dismissing CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 1590-1591 OF 2013 between Anilkumar v/s M.K. Aiyappa. The Apex Court has further observed therein that "In order that the public servant may not be unnecessarily harassed on a complaint of an unscrupulous person, it is obligatory on the part of the executive authority to protect him….. If the law requires sanction, and the court proceeds against a public servant without sanction, the public servant has a right to raise the issue of jurisdiction as the entire action may be rendered void ab-initio.