Under which circumstances the court must relegate parties to adoption petition to substantive suit?

  The civil court rejected the petition on two grounds firstly that the biological parents have taken objection for giving the child in adoption and secondly that adoption deed is not registered as per Section 16 of HAMA. As regards the rejection on the ground of absence of consent is concerned, as indicated above, the proper course would have been to relegate the parties to the remedy of substantive suit. In face of the objection raised by the biological parents, the issue could not be decided in summary manner as decided by the Civil Court in the Adoption Petition. The inquiry contemplated under the provisions of HAMA as regards the actual giving and taking of the child in adoption with the intent of transferring the child from the family of the biological parents to the family of adoptive parents was not conducted in the proceedings of Adoption Petition No 189 of 2021. The biological parents have disputed that the adoptive parents were present at the time of execution of the Deed of Adoption and it is their contention that the child was handed over to Ms. Julia of AHAM Foundation. Clause (vi) of section 11 of HAMA emphasizes give and take of child with intent to transfer the child from one family to another. The intention will have to be gathered from the conduct of parties at the time of actual give and take of the child which can be only conclusively proved after the evidence in that behalf has been led. In wake of the dispute being raised as regards the actual giving and taking of the child with intent to transfer the child from one family to another, evidence was required to be led.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 6461 of 2023

Decided On: 19.08.2023

Jeetendra  Vs. Yash 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3247/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether the court can entertain miscellaneous application after disposal of main petition?

  The adoption petition was disposed of on 16th March, 2022 and Misc. Application was filed on 18th August, 2022. The provisions of Order 20 Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) provides that the judgment once signed shall not afterwards be altered or added to save as provided by Section 152 or on review. I find considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for Petitioner that once the adoption petition was disposed of by order dated 16th March, 2022, the City Civil Court became functus officio and could not have entertained Misc Application No.137 of 2022. Pertinently at the time of passing of the order dated 8th March, 2023 in Misc. Application No.137 of 2022, the same Court was seized of Short Cause Suit No.2830 of 2022 and passed the order in Notice of Motion No.4791 of 2022 on the same day. In spite of being functus officio, the City Civil Court has, on the basis of arguments and documents, decided the miscellaneous application and vide order dated 8th March, 2023 directed the custody to be handed over to the respondents herein which cannot be sustained. {Para 38}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 6461 of 2023

Decided On: 19.08.2023

Jeetendra  Vs. Yash 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3247/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether government circular have overriding effect over statutory provisions?

  As regards the Government Circulars relied upon by learned counsel for the respondents, the circular dated 15th May, 2015 provides that as regards non institutional adoptions, registered adoption deed is enough and there is no need to produce adoption order of a court for such cases. The circular dated 31st January, 2018 the same is in respect of adoptions through institutions. A reading of the said circulars cannot be interpreted to mean that the adoption deed is required to be mandatorily registered. In any case the government circulars cannot override the statutory provisions and the circulars have been issued to facilitate the registration of births and issuance of birth certificate in respect of adopted child. {Para 39}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 6461 of 2023

Decided On: 19.08.2023

Jeetendra  Vs. Yash 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3247/2023.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Whether it is mandatory to register adoption deed?

 The civil court rejected the petition on two grounds firstly that the biological parents have taken objection for giving the child in adoption and secondly that adoption deed is not registered as per Section 16 of HAMA. As regards the rejection on the ground of absence of consent is concerned, as indicated above, the proper course would have been to relegate the parties to the remedy of substantive suit. This was not done and the petition was rejected. The second ground was that the adoption deed was not registered. In that context if we peruse Section 16 of HAMA, it raises a statutory presumption as to registered documents relating to adoption provided that the condition precedent is satisfied and cannot be interpreted to mean that the adoption deed is required to be registered. In that context if we peruse the provisions of Section 17 of Indian Registration Act, 1908, the deed of adoption does not find mention in the documents required to be compulsorily registered.  The provisions of HAMA do not require a document to be registered, however, there is a statutory presumption which arises in respect of the registered document relating to adoption. In the present case, as the deed of adoption is not registered, the condition precedent for statutory presumption to be raised is not satisfied and as such without evidence being led, there can be no presumption relating to adoption as regards the unregistered deed of adoption. 

{Para 32}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Writ Petition No. 6461 of 2023

Decided On: 19.08.2023

Jeetendra  Vs. Yash 

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/3247/2023.

Print Page

Whether criminal offence is made out if public work is alloted by govt servant in violation of circulars?

It
stipulates that a public servant is said to commit the offence of
criminal misconduct if he, by abusing his position as a public
servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable
thing or pecuniary advantage. Thus, the ingredients which will be
required to be proved are:
(1) The public servant has abused his position.
(2) By abusing that position, he has obtained for himself or for
any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. In C. Chenga Reddy & Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193,
this Court held that even when codal violations were established
and it was also proved that there were irregularities committed by
allotting/ awarding the work in violation of circulars, that by itself
was not sufficient to prove that a criminal case was made out. The
Court went on to hold:
“22. On a careful consideration of the material on
the record, we are of the opinion that though the
prosecution has established that the appellants
have committed not only codal violations but also
irregularities by ignoring various circulars and
departmental orders issued from time to time in the
matter of allotment of work of jungle clearance on
nomination basis and have committed
departmental lapse yet, none of the circumstances
relied upon by the prosecution are of any
conclusive nature and all the circumstances put
together do not lead to the irresistible conclusion
that the said circumstances are compatible only

with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants
and wholly incompatible with their innocence. In
Abdulla Mohd. Pagarkar v. State (Union Territory of
Goa, Daman and Diu), (1980) 3 SCC 110, under
somewhat similar circumstances this Court opined
that mere disregard of relevant provisions of the
Financial Code as well as ordinary norms of
procedural behaviour of government officials and
contractors, without conclusively establishing,
beyond a reasonable doubt, the guilt of the officials
and contractors concerned, may give rise to a
strong suspicion but that cannot be held to
establish the guilt of the accused. The established
circumstances in this case also do not establish
criminality of the appellants beyond the realm of
suspicion and, in our opinion, the approach of the
trial court and the High Court to the requirements of
proof in relation to a criminal charge was not
proper....”
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 131 OF 2007
A. SIVAPRAKASH 
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA .
Dated:MAY 10, 2016

Print Page

Supreme court; LIC can not modify Insurance Act by issuing circulars?

 In our considered opinion it is not open to the Appellants to charter a
course which is different to the postulation in the Insurance Act, by means of its
own Circulars. We need not go beyond mentioning the decision of this Court in
Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1979) 1 SCC 137 wherein it has been held
that the Legislature cannot efface itself by delegating its plenary powers unless
the delegate functions strictly under its supervision. If the delegate is allowed
to function independently it would tantamount to “usurpation of legislative
power itself.” This view came to be reiterated to decades later in Agricultural
Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 516. This
Court held that “....... Power to make subsidiary legislation may be entrusted by
the legislature to another body of its choice but the legislature should, before
delegating, enunciate either expressly or by implication, the policy and the
principles for the guidance of the delegates”. The position that obtains today is
diametrically opposite inasmuch as the statute permitted, at the relevant time,
the assignment and/or transfer of life insurance policies, but the delegate,
through its Circulars, has attempted to nullify that provision of law. We
conclude, therefore, that the circulars are ultra vires the Statute and must
therefore be made ineffectual.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8542 OF 2009
LIC OF INDIA 
V
INSURE POLICY PLUS SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ORS …
Dated;December 29, 2015.

Print Page

Whether circular issued by Reserve bank of India are binding on banks and financial institutions?

The Master Circular being issued under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, has a binding effect on a bank or a financial institution. When a Master Circular has such binding effect to try and find out portions of it and that too crucial portions and hold that such portions are directory, would be against the intention of the legislature when the legislature prescribes that a Circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India under Section 35A of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 is binding on a bank and financial institution governed by it.

Calcutta High Court

Kingfisher Airlines Limited & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 December, 2014

Author: Debangsu Basak

Citation;AIR 2015 (NOC)337 CAl

Print Page

Non-Banking Financial Companies (NBFCs)

Non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) are fast emerging as an important segment of Indian financial system. It is an heterogeneous group of institutions (other than commercial and co-operative banks) performing financial intermediation in a variety of ways, like accepting deposits, making loans and advances, leasing, hire purchase, etc. They raise funds from the public, directly or indirectly, and lend them to ultimate spenders. They advance loans to the various wholesale and retail traders, small-scale industries and self-employed persons. Thus, they have broadened and diversified the range of products and services offered by a financial sector. Gradually, they are being recognised as complementary to the banking sector due to their customer-oriented services; simplified procedures; attractive rates of return on deposits; flexibility and timeliness in meeting the credit needs of specified sectors; etc.
The working and operations of NBFCs are regulated by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) within the framework of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (Chapter III B) and the directions issued by it under the Act. As per the RBI Act, a 'non-banking financial company' is defined as:- (i) a financial institution which is a company; (ii) a non banking institution which is a company and which has as its principal business the receiving of deposits, under any scheme or arrangement or in any other manner, or lending in any manner; (iii) such other non-banking institution or class of such institutions, as the bank may, with the previous approval of the Central Government and by notification in the Official Gazette, specify.

Print Page

Are you disabled? Save income tax under section 80U

³⁴[D.—Other deductions

³⁵[Deduction in case of a person with disability.

80U.  (1) In computing the total income of an individual, being a resident, who, at any time during the previous year, is certified by the medical authority to be a person with disability, there shall be allowed a deduction of a sum of fifty thousand rupees :

Provided that where such individual is a person with severe disability, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words “fifty thousand rupees”, the words “seventy-five thousand rupees” had been substituted:

³⁶[Provided further that for the assessment years beginning on or after the 1st day of April, 2010, the provisions of the first proviso shall have effect as if for the words “seventy-five thousand rupees”, the words “one lakh rupees” had been substituted.]

(2) Every individual claiming a deduction under this section shall furnish a copy of the certificate issued by the medical authority in the form and manner, as may be prescribed³⁷, along with the return of income under section 139, in respect of the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed :

Provided that where the condition of disability requires reassessment of its extent after a period stipulated in the aforesaid certificate, no deduction under this section shall be allowed for any assessment year relating to any previous year beginning after the expiry of the previous year during which the aforesaid certificate of disability had expired, unless a new certificate is obtained from the medical authority in the form and manner, as may be prescribed³⁷, and a copy thereof is furnished along with the return of income under section 139.

³⁸[Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—

          (a)  “disability” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (i) of section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996)³⁹, and includes “autism”, “cerebral palsy” and “multiple disabilities” referred to in clauses (a), (c) and (h) of section 2⁴⁰ of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (44 of 1999);

          (b)  “medical authority” means the medical authority as referred to in clause (p) of section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996)⁴¹, or such other medical authority as may, by notification, be specified by the Central Government for certifying “autism”, “cerebral palsy”, “multiple disabilities”, “person with disability” and “severe disability” referred to in clauses (a), (c), (h), (j) and (o) of section 2 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (44 of 1999)⁴²;

           (c)  “person with disability” means a person referred to in clause (t) of section 2 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996)⁴¹, or clause (j) of section 2 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (44 of 1999)⁴²;

          (d)  “person with severe disability” means—

       (i)  a person with eighty per cent or more of one or more disabilities, as referred to in sub-section (4) of section 56 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (1 of 1996)⁴³; or

     (ii)  a person with severe disability referred to in clause (o) of section 2 of the National Trust for Welfare of Persons with Autism, Cerebral Palsy, Mental Retardation and Multiple Disabilities Act, 1999 (44 of 1999)⁴⁴.]]

Print Page

Repayment of fixed deposit FD in banks

Reserve bank of India has issued a circular about repayment of fixed deposit or term deposit. RBI feels that on the repayment of fixed deposit, banks often do some kind of problems to customers in signature problem. So RBI gives relief to customers on this behalf. According to circular in the case of Fixed deposit in the name of Either or survivor, the signature is must only of 1 person and not all in the case of encashing the fd on maturity. Full circular is as under.

Print Page