Whether a tenant can invoke Section 8(5) of TN Rent Control Act on mere refusal to receive the rent by the tenant?

M. Doss and Anr vs A. Sankar ( 2010) 4 TLNJ 557 (Civil)

Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control Act 1960) Section 8, 10(2)(i) - Eviction petition filed on the ground of wilful default and different user - Rent Control ordered eviction on the ground of wilful default - appeal by tenant to the appellate authority dismissed - On revision under section 25 of the act, High Court opined that mere refusal of the landlord to receive any rent cannot justify tenant to invoke Section 8(5) without following procedures stated in the sub-sections - such deposit will not also protect tenant against actions on the ground of wilful default - Civil Revision Petition dismissed.

Whether a claim for damages can be decreed when the suit is premature?

Raghbinder Singh vs Bant Kaur and Others (2010) 8 MLJ 1028 (SC)

Civil proceedings for damages for offence of murder - Criminal Proceedings pending before High Court - Order of payment of compensation - Filing of Civil Suit before adjudgment of culpability in Criminal trial - Plea of non-maintainability of suit suit on ground of being premature - Scope of.

FACTS IN BRIEF:

Aggrieved by the judgement and order of the High Court ordering compensation to the plaintiffs/respondents for the loss of dependency and mental agony suffered by them caused by the murder committed by the appellant, appeal has been filed by the appellant.

A suit of a civil nature even if filed before the date on which the Plaintiff became actually entitled to sue and claim damages based on a cause of action of a suit, need not be dismissed for that reason. The Court possesses jurisdiction to entertain the suit and to pass a decree which is of discretionary in nature.

Whether an accused be convicted under section 306 merely of his implied act which led to the commission of suicide?

Gangula Mohan Reddy vs State of Andhra Pradesh (2010) (1) SCALE 1

Held: Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC there has to be clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide.

In the light of the provision of law and well-settled legal provisions crystallized by a series of judgements of this Court, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant allowed and disposed of.

Whether appearance of POA instead of the appearance of party to the suit can be admitted?

Man Kaur (Dead) By LRS. vs Hartar Singh Sangha (2010) 10 SCC 512

Held: Where a party to the suit does not appear in witness box and state his own case on oath and does not offer himself to be cross-examined by the other side, a presumption would arise that case set upon by him is not correct

Whether the claimant is entitled to no fault compensation under section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act though the claim was not made at the initial stage?

Whether the claimant is entitled to no fault compensation under section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act though the claim was not made at the initial stage of the proceedings?

Eshwarappa @ Maheswarappa and Anr vs C.S. Gurushanthappa and anr (2010) 8 MLJ 802 SC

Held: The provisions of Chapter X together with Sections 146 and 147 would appear to be furtherance of the public policy that in case of death or permanent disablement of any person resulting from a motor accident, a minimum amount must be paid to the heirs of the deceased, as the case may be, without questions being asked and independently of the compensation on the principle of fault.

Whether decree of divorce can be granted under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act on the basis of consent of parties?

Sanjeetha Das vs Tapan Kumar Mohanty (2010) 8 MLJ 726 (SC)

No Court can assume jurisdiction to dissolve a Hindu Marriage simply on the basis of the consent of the parties de hors the grounds enumerated under Section 13 of the Act, unless of course the consenting parties proceed under section 13-B of the Act