LawforAll

▼
Saturday, February 28, 2026

Registration Act, 1908 and Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Unilateral cancellation of registered lease — Impermissible — Absence of forfeiture clause — Determination under Section 111 TPA not established. (Paras 10.2, 21) The lease deed contained no clause permitting unilateral cancellation by the lessor. There was no proof of determination in terms of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, the unilateral deed of cancellation dated 03.12.2003 was illegal and non est. Ratio Decidendi: In absence of contractual stipulation or statutory ground under Section 111 TPA, a registered lease cannot be unilaterally cancelled by the lessor; such cancellation is void.

›
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 — Section 105 — Lease v. Licence — Tests for determination — Intention of parties — Literal construction pref...

Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 — Section 30(1) — Search and seizure — Decision to authorize search must be of the ‘Appropriate Authority’ collectively — Search ordered by Chairperson alone — Illegal — Applicability of precedent. (Paras 41–45, 50) The communication/order dated 17.09.2015 directing raid was issued by the Civil Surgeon acting as Chairperson of the District Appropriate Authority without evidence of collective decision by all members. Applying the ratio in Ravindra Kumar v. State of Haryana, the Court held that authorization of search under Section 30(1) must be by the Appropriate Authority as a body; unilateral decision by Chairperson vitiates the search. Ratio Decidendi: Authorization of search under Section 30(1) of the PCPNDT Act must emanate from the Appropriate Authority collectively; a unilateral decision of the Chairperson renders the search illegal.

›
Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 — Section 30(1) — Search and seizure — Decision ...

Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Sections 18(a)(i), 17(b), 17(c), 27(d), 32 — Cognizance — Complaint by Drugs Inspector — Limitation under Sections 468–469 CrPC — Commencement of limitation where identity of offender emerges during inquiry — Held, limitation commences under Section 469(1)(c) CrPC from the date when identity of offender becomes known during investigation — Complaint filed within three years thereof is within limitation. (Paras 31–36) The allegation related to misbranding of vaccine labels. Though the initial private complaint was dated 05.01.2006, the identity of all accused persons crystallised only upon completion of inquiry and document verification on 18.04.2006. Applying Section 469(1)(c) CrPC, the limitation period commenced from the date when identity of offenders became known to the competent authority. The complaint dated 20.01.2009 was therefore within the three-year limitation prescribed under Section 468(2)(c) CrPC for offences punishable up to three years. Ratio Decidendi: For purposes of limitation under Section 468 CrPC, where identity of the offender is ascertained during investigation, the period of limitation commences from such date under Section 469(1)(c), not from the date of initial information.

›
Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 — Sections 18(a)(i), 17(b), 17(c), 27(d), 32 — Cognizance — Complaint by Drugs Inspector — Limitation under Se...

Customs Act, 1962 — Section 135(1)(b)(i) — Dealing with smuggled goods — Conviction based on statements under Section 108 — Admissibility and evidentiary value — Held, statements recorded under Section 108 by authorized Customs Officers are admissible and can form substantive evidence if voluntary — Not hit by Sections 24, 30 or 34 of the Evidence Act — Conviction upheld where corroborative material exists. (Paras 20–23) The appellants contended that conviction was founded solely on confessional statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act. The Court affirmed the High Court’s reasoning that statements under Section 108, if voluntary, are admissible and constitute substantive evidence. The High Court had found that the statements were not shown to be obtained by coercion and that they led to recovery of incriminating articles and money documented by panchnamas, thereby providing corroboration. No perversity was found in concurrent findings of the courts below. Ratio Decidendi: A voluntary statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible and may sustain conviction, particularly when corroborated by recoveries and other circumstantial evidence.

›
Customs Act, 1962 — Section 135(1)(b)(i) — Dealing with smuggled goods — Conviction based on statements under Section 108 — Admissibility an...

Service Law — Promotions in Kerala Technical Education Service — Effect of prior Supreme Court judgment — High Court cannot indirectly unsettle benefits granted by Supreme Court — Finality of judicial orders — Held, once promotions were granted in compliance with specific directions of Supreme Court and contempt petition disposed noting compliance, High Court could not pass directions adversely affecting such beneficiaries — Appeal allowed to limited extent. (Paras 13–15) The appellants had secured promotion pursuant to orders of this Court in earlier proceedings, including compliance recorded in contempt jurisdiction. The High Court, while deciding connected matters, issued directions which had the effect of prejudicially impacting the appellants’ promotional benefits though they were not parties before it. The Supreme Court held that the High Court could not revisit or disturb the finality attached to orders passed by this Court, particularly where such orders had attained finality and were acted upon. Ratio Decidendi: Benefits flowing from a final judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be nullified or diluted by subsequent High Court directions in proceedings to which the beneficiaries were not parties.

›
Service Law — Promotions in Kerala Technical Education Service — Effect of prior Supreme Court judgment — High Court cannot indirectly unset...