LegalMines

(Committed to legal awareness and prudence!………….)

REGULAR Updates!          

[Issue No.:54(4)  / 2022]

Corpus Juris: Corpus juris (originally used by Romans) is a legal terms which literally means ‘body of law’. Elaborately, it is the complete collection of laws of a particular jurisdiction or court. The term is commonly used to refer to the entire body of law of a country, jurisdiction, or court, such as “the corpus juris of the Supreme Court of India. For example, the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) is the corpus juris as to law relating insolvency and bankruptcy in India.

(1)   Olga Tellis & Ors. Vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. [AIR 1986 SC 180]: Factually in this case, the eviction order approved by Mr. A.R. Antulay, the then Chief Minister of Maharashtra, was questioned by Olga Tellis, a journalist, in collaboration with the PUCL and other groups. The residents of the pavement, as well as public interest organisations, stated that the eviction order was a violation of their fundamental rights and hence they are deprived of their fundamental rights enshrined in Article 19 as well as the right to life provided by Article 21 as a result of the eviction. In this case the five-judges Bench (C.J., Y.V. Chandrachud, J., A.V. Varadarajan, J., O. Chinnappa Reddy, J., S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, and J., V.D. Tulzapurkar) of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that Article 21 of the Constitution’s right to life included the right to livelihood because, “if the State has an obligation to provide citizens with an adequate means of livelihood, and thus the right to work, it might be sheer pedantry to exclude the right to livelihood from the content of the right to life.” The Court further held that the right to a living was not absolute, and deprivation of the right to a living might occur if a legal procedure was followed in a just and fair manner.

(2)   Kihoto Hollohan Vs. Zachillu [1992 SCR (1) 686]: It is a leading case on Anti Defection Law. In this case, the 52^nd Constitutional Amendment was challenged. The constitution bench of the Supreme Court analyzed in detail the various provisions of the 52^nd  Amendment of the Constitution which inserted a new schedule (tenth schedule) elaborating various provisions to protect the parties from defection.  The Supreme Court upheld the constitutional validity of the 52^nd Amendment to the Constitution as this amendment does not violate freedom of free speech or fundamental principle of the parliamentary democracy. However, the court held that Para 7 of the schedule is ultra vires to the Constitution as it tries to change the impact of Articles 136, 226 and 227 of the Constitution and thus excludes judicial review. The Court also clarified that the presiding officer has the power to make the decision and when that decision is pronounced and effected, it is subject to judicial review.

[i]. The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(1)      True/ False: A Magistrate cannot entertain an application under Section 156 (3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 when the complaint is not supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the complainant—True. [Refer Babu Venkatesh Vs. State of Karnataka (DoJ: 18-02-2022-Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 181)]

(2)      In cases tried by the Court of Session or a Chief Judicial Magistrate, the Court or such Magistrate, as the case may be, shall forward a copy of its or his finding and sentence (if any) to __________ within whose local jurisdiction the trial was held—The District Magistrate (Refer Section 365 of the Cr.P.C.)

(3)      As per Section______of the Cr.P.C., 1973, a sentence of death to be submitted by Court of Session for confirmation to ________Court—Section 366; High Court.

(4)      Sections _______ and ________ of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 deal with an order for custody and disposal of property pending trial and procedure by police upon seizure of property respectively—Sections 451; 457.

(5)      True/False: The Magistrate/ Court can employ his or its power under Sections 451/457, Cr.P.C., 1973 when trial or inquiry has not been set in motion—False. (The Magistrate/ Court concerned can not emply such power without otherwise than in inquiry or trial; Refer Section 457 of the Cr.P.C.,1973)

[ii]. The Code of Procedure Code, 1908

(1)      Which Order of the Code of Civil Procedure deals with the appeals from original decrees?—Order 41.

(2)      True/ False: As a general rule, the parties to an appeal shall not be entitled to produce additional evidence, whether oral or documentary, in the Appellate Court (AC) unless the AC allows for such additional evidence with recorded reasons therefor —True (Refer Rule 27 to Order 41 of the CPC, 1908).

(3)      The Appellate Court (AC) has power to order for additional evidence under Rule____to Order ____of the CPC, 1908—Rule 27; Order 41.

(4)      True/ False: Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure which enables an appellate court to take additional evidence in exceptional circumstances—True.

(5)      True/ False: Wherever additional evidence is allowed to be produced by the Appellate Court (AC), the AC has to take such additional evidence at their own and shall not delegate such power—False (Refer Rule 28 to Order 41 of the CPC, 1908).

[iii]. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

(1)      True/ False: Section 27 incorporates the theory of “confirmation by subsequent facts” facilitating a link to the chain of events and it is for the prosecution to prove that the information received from the accused is relatable to the fact discovered—True

(2)      Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 applies to the information received from the accused while he is in _________custody—Police Custody. (Refer Section 27 of the IEA,1872)

(3)      True/ False: Admissibility under Section 27 is relatable to the information pertaining to a fact discovered. This provision merely facilitates proof of a fact discovered in consequence of information received from a person in custody, accused of an offense—True.

(4)      True/ False: Section 27 is an exception to Sections 24 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and meant for a specific purpose and thus be construed as a proviso—True

(5)      True/ False: While exercising power to put questions or order production under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a Judge is empowered to compel the witness to answer or to produce documents as to privileged communications (sections 121 to 131)—False (Refer Section 137 of IEA, 1872)

(1)        Constitution of India, 1950: Though Article 21-A was inserted vide Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, 2002, it came into force w.e.f.?—01-04-2010.

(2)      Indian Penal Code, 1860: An offence as to kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage or to seduce to illicit intercourse etc. is a punishable offence under which Section?—Section 366.

(3)      Transfer of Property Act, 1882 Wilberforce Vs. Wilberforce [(1915) 1 Ch 94] case relates to which Section of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?—Section 57.

(4)      Indian Contract Act, 1872: If the pawnor makes default in payment of the debt, or performance, at the stipulated time of the promise, in respect of which the goods were pledged, the pawnee may bring a suit against the pawnor upon the debt or promise, and retain the goods pledged as a—Collateral security (Refer Section 176 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872)

(5)      Partnership Act, 1932:  True/ False: The Indian Contract Act, 1872 shall be application to the Partnership Act, 1932 to the extent of consistency—True (Refer Section 3 of the Partnership Act, 1932)

(6)      Sale of Goods Act, 1930: True/ False: The Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956 (SCRA) is a special law to regulate the sale and purchase of shares and securities and hence it prevails over the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Sale of Goods Act, 1930—True. (Refer Securities and Exchange Board of India vs. M/s. Opee Stock-Link Ltd. & Anr- DoJ: 11-07-2016, Supreme Court of India)

(7)      Specific Relief Act, 1963: In which case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that Section 22(2) of the Specific Relief Act is only directory provision and the relief of possession is ancillary to the decree for specific performance and need not be specifically claimed— Manickam @ Thandapani vs Vasantha (DoJ: 05-04-2022).

(8)      Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881: True/ False: An accused cannot claim a blanket exemption from appearance in a case pertaining to the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—True [Mahesh Kumar Kejriwal vs Bhanuj Jindal (Supreme Court) : DoJ: 18-04-2022]

(1)      Which Article contains provisions regarding control of the Union over the administration of scheduled areas and the welfare of scheduled tribes?—Article 339.

(2)      The Banking Regulation Act was enacted in which year ?—1949.

(3)      In which year was the first linguistic State formed?—1953.

(4)      How many Fundamental Rights did the Indian Constitution contain initially?—7 .

(5)      Who has the power to summon or prorogue the Parliament and dissolve the Lok Sabha?—President of India.