Legal Corner

The principle of strict liability evolved in the case of  Rylands v Fletcher . In the year 1868, the principle of strict liability states that any person who keeps hazardous substances on his premises will be held responsible if such substances escape the premises and causes any damage. Going into the facts of the case, F had a mill on his land, and to power the mill, F built a reservoir on his land. Due to some accident, the water from the reservoir flooded the coal mines owned by R. Subsequently, R filed a suit against F. The Court held that the defendant built the reservoir at his risk, and in course of it, if any accident happens then the defendant will be liable for the accident and escape of the material. Going by the principle laid in this case, it can be said that if a person brings on his land and keeps some dangerous thing, and such a thing is likely to cause some damage if it escapes then such person will be answerable for the damaged caused. The person from whose pr...

In the year 2003-04,The Finance Minister mentioned in his budget speech about the confiscatory statement during the search and survey made by the Income Tax Authorities  as under : “That one of his priorities concerning search and survey operations is that no confessions shall be obtained during search proceedings. Judicial opinion also is that admissions recorded during survey operations are invalid. Yet, this is being freely done”. The Board of direct taxes issued   instruction to theAll Chief Commissioners of Income Tax, (Cadre Contra) & All Directors General of Income Tax Inv. vide letter   F. No. 286/2/2003-IT (Inv) dated 10.03.2003 in   regard of confiscatory statement in the course of search and seizer as under: “Instances have come to the notice of the Board where assessees have claimed that they have been forced to confess the undisclosed income during the course of the search & seizure and survey operations. Such ...

Sec 194IA: (1) Any person, being a transferee, responsible for paying (other than the person referred to in section 194LA) to a resident transferor any sum by way of consideration for transfer of any immovable property (other than agricultural land), shall, at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the transferor or at the time of payment of such sum in cash or by issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct an amount equal to one per cent of such sum as income-tax thereon. (2) No deduction under sub-section (1) shall be made where the consideration for the transfer of an immovable property is less than fifty lakh rupees. (3) The provisions of section 203A shall not apply to a person required to deduct tax in accordance with the provisions of this section. Sec 194-IA deals with TDS on sale of immovable property. Under this section TDS is to be deducted @1%  at the time of credit of such sum to the account of the transf...

The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in Harshad Manubhai Malavaiya vs State Of Gujarat, held that husband is not liable for a cheque issued by the wife in her personal capacity. In the instant matter, Justice JB Pardiwala examined the question whether the petitioner can be made vicariously liable under Section 138 for the cheque dishonoured which were issued by his wife in personal capacity. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in the matter of M/s Aparna A Shah vs M/s Sheth Developers Pvt Ltd  and considering the language used in Section 138 and taking note of background agreement pursuant to which a cheque is issued by more than one.  this court held that it is only the “drawer” of the cheque who can be made liable for the penal action under the provisions of the NI Act. The normal rule in the cases involving criminal liability is against vicarious liability. To put it clear, no one is to be held criminally liable for an act of another. In the a...

Under Article 226 of Constitution, HC has power to issue such writs and orders as are necessary for administrative action and judicial or quasi-judicial action A writ, direction or order may be issued by the High Court under Article 226 to a person or authority amenable to the Court’s jurisdiction either by residence or location within the State, even if the petitioner and other parties are from other States. This power can be exercised, under Article 226(2) of the Constitution, though the person or authority is outside the territories in relation to which the High Court has jurisdiction, provided the cause of action arises, wholly or in part, within such territories.Under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court has the power to issue not only writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus, but also other writs, directions and orders. In other words, even if the case is one in which a High Prerogative Writ proper as known in England cannot be issued, the Indian High Court ha...