Wednesday, 26 November 2014

Whether name of genetic mother or gestational mother should be registered as mother of children born by surrogacy arrangement?

M.R. and D.R.(suing by their father and next friend O.R.) & ors -v- An t-Ard-Chláraitheoir & ors [2014] IESC 60 (7 November 2014) The definition of a mother, whether she is “genetic” or “gestational” for the purpose of registration laws was a matter for parliament, not the courts, the Irish Supreme Court has ruled.
Print Page

Information obtained unlawfully by police is admissible in regulatory proceedings

The inadmissibility of the internet communication in the criminal proceedings did not render it immune from disclosure under s.35A Medical Act 1983. As for relevance, where there might be different interpretations of the information, it is for the regulator to determine which is correct, and whether there are further lines of enquiry to be pursued, the scope of the GMC’s enquiry being broader than the criminal enquiry. In the circumstances the internet communication could not be said to be irrelevant to the GMC’s investigation (paras. 59-61). In considering the disclosure of the police interview, which had to be taken a whole, the Court took into account the criticisms of the interviewing process, along with the fact that the doctor had been cautioned and the interviews were accurately transcribed, and concluded that disclosure to the GMC was reasonable and justified.
R (on the application of Nakash) v Metropolitan Police Service and General Medical Council [2014] EWHC 3810 (Admin) – read judgment
Print Page

Whether sister can obstruct execution of decree against her brother?

 The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that as per the above said provisions, the revision petitioner is not entitled to any share since the partition among the family members effected in the year 1984 and the revision petitioner also married 20 years ago and she is not jointly enjoying the properties for more than 20 years and therefore, the revision petitioner is not entitled to any share in the suit properties. The learned counsel further submitted that even assuming the revision petitioner is one of the coparcener, the revision petitioner is also liable to pay the amount borrowed from the 1st respondent by the 2nd respondent in view of Section 6(1) (c) of Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act 2005. Further, the learned counsel submitted that the revision petitioner has filed a claim application under Section 47, Order 21 Rule 58 and 151 CPC, but, the revision petitioner is not a party in the above said suit or execution proceedings and therefore, as per the above said provisions, the revision petitioner is not entitled to file the claim application.
A careful perusal of the above said provisions revealed that the revision petitioner, who is third party in the proceedings is not entitled to file claim application since the revision petitioner is not a party to the proceedings or their representatives as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent.
Madras High Court
P.Santha vs S.Arumugam on 30 April, 2014
Citation;AIR 2014(NOC)568 Mad
Print Page

Whether Bank has right to recover money paid under mistake?

 The Bank, of course, has a right to recover the money paid under a mistake as per Section 72 of the Indian Contract Act, which reads as under:
72. Liability of person to whom money is paid or thing delivered by mistake or under coercion.- A person to whom money has been paid, or anything delivered, by mistake or under coercion, must repay or return it.
29. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant brought to our notice a judgment of this Court in Jammu and Kashmir Bank Ltd. v. Attar-Ul-Nissa and Ors. MANU/SC/0007/1966: AIR 1967 SC 540. In that case, this Court had held that if a third party, by mistake deposits the money in account of some other person, as soon as the money is deposited in the account of such third person, who is a customer of the bank, the money becomes the money of customer, and it is not open to the bank in such circumstances, without obtaining the consent of the customer, to reverse the entry of credit made in his account and in effect pay back the money to the person who had deposited it, even though it might have been deposited by mistake. In this connection, we may refer to a judgment in United Overseas Bank v. Jiwani (1977) 1 All ER 733, wherein the Defendant had an account in Switzerland in which there was a credit of US$ 11000. The Defendant intended to purchase a hotel as an investment. The Bankers in Switzerland sent by telex US$ 11000 to London bankers at the instance of the Defendant and also an advice confirming the telex. The London bank by a mistake credited two sums of US$ 11000 to the Defendant. Later, when the Defendant enquired about its balance, it was shown to be about US$ 32000. The Defendant purchased a hotel out of the amount with the London Bankers. Facts would reveal, but for this balance shown, he would not have been able to purchase the hotel. The bankers rectified its error. Consequently, there was a debit balance of US$ 9000 as against the Defendant. Plaintiff bank demanded the money of the overdraft. It was held by the Court that the extra money credited to the Defendant's account was under mistake of fact and the bank was entitled to recover it.
Banking - Wrong credit - Re-payment thereof - Appellant's challenge to action of Bank was dismissed by High Court on ground that it was dispute which arose out of contractual relationship between parties and therefore, appropriate remedy for Appellant was by way of civil suit and not writ petition - Hence, present appeal - Whether Bank was right in debiting foreign currency in Appellant's account, after long lapse of time, on ground that it was wrongly deposited in Appellant's account and driving Appellant to recover amount by way of civil proceeding - Held, Appellant used to export goods directly and submitted documents to Bank and it was for Bank to claim payment and report transaction to Reserve Bank of India to claim export benefits - Bank committed mistake when Appellant had submitted copies of export bills to it on account of amount related to Importer - Bank after seeing credit amount in name of Appellant Smart Screen Reconciliation, evidently in good faith credited said amount to account of Appellant which was meant for another Bank - Bank might have committed mistake, but now it would be impossible for Appellant to recover amount from importer since, so far as importer was concerned, it had paid amount - If Bank had not given credit of amount, then, Appellant could have proceeded against importer at earliest opportunity - Therefore, Appellant would not suffer for mistake committed by Bank - Impugned order set aside - Appeal allowed. 
Civil Appeal No. 4807 of 2014 (Arising out Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 28366 of 2010)
Decided On: 23.04.2014
Appellants: Metro Exporters Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.
Respondent: State Bank of India and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan and Vikramajit Sen, JJ.
Print Page