CASE BRIEFS

This court held that learned single judge wrongly applied Saumya Chaurasia v. Directorate of Enforcement (2024) 6 SCC 401 wherein court observed that category of persons added in section 45 (1) proviso should be dealt more sympathetically reason being such persons are likely to be more vulnerable and may sometimes be misused for committing such crimes.

Considering the finding of Saumya Chaurasia (supra) this court observed in present case in para 27 that finding of the said case does not mean that section 45(1) proviso only includes “vulnerable women”. Moreover only because women is highly educated that does not mean she is not entitled to the benefit under section 45(1) proviso.

In Har Naraini Devi and Another vs. Union of India and Others, an order of the division bench was assailed by filing an appeal before the apex court on the ground that section 50 of Delhi Land Reforms, 1954 (hereinafter referred as DLR Act) being ultra vires to Article 14, 15, 21 & 254 of the Constitution. The significant issue in the present case was controversy regarding the applicability of the Delhi Land Reform Act, 1954 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 on any inheritance that accrued before the amendment of Hindu Succession in 2005.

“Whether Section 50 of the DLR Act has been repealed by the Amendment Act inasmuch as by omitting Section 4(2) of the HSA, 1956, it has removed the immunity that the DLR Act had with respect to the laws of succession in respect of agricultural land? Also, if that be the case, do the petitioners, being female, now have the right to succeed to the disputed agricultural land?”

Whether it was a custodial death?

Whether the state is liable to pay compensation? Or Whether state can pass an order of compensation under writ jurisdiction?

The present case concerns part XIV-A of the constitution the said part was appended with 42nd amendment of the Constitution in 1976. It includes two provisions 323A & 323B which confers power on the legislature to ordain any law concerning the establishment administrative tribunals and other tribunals, moreover to specify the power and procedure to be adopted by such tribunal for adjudication of any dispute referred to such tribunals.

The question for our consideration is whether in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court can pass an order for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right?

Whether relief for the possession of immoveable property and relief for the mean profit concerning the same property arise out of “same cause of action” for the application of order 2 rule 2?

The following issues were framed by the trial court: (in 2007 suit)

“1. Whether the description of suit property is correct?

2. Whether plaintiff proves that he has purchased suit property and he acquired valid title as pleaded?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit property?

4. Whether Defendant 2 proves that KSFC had no authority to put the suit property     for sale?

5. Whether Defendant 2 proves that there is no cause of action for the suit?

6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree?

7. What decree or order.”?

Whether DLR Act will ceases to apply after passing notification under section 507 of DMC Act?

Whether tax could be levied by MCD after urbanization of agricultural land?

Whether court can in exercise of its jurisdiction under article 142 of Constitution of India, can pass an order of automatic vacation of interim/stay orders of the High Courts of staying proceedings of civil or criminal cases on the expiry of certain period?

Whether this court under article 142 can direct the High courts to decide pending case in which interim order of stay of proceedings has been granted, on day-to-day basis and within a fixed period?