Law of Contracts formation of contracts an, Lecture notes of Law

Download Law of Contracts formation of contracts an and more Lecture notes Law in PDF only on Docsity! I 8 /’; TAMIL NADU STATE JUDICIAL ACADEMY Vol: XIV Part: 8 August, 2019 IMPORTANT CASE LAW HEADQUARTERS, CHENNAI No.30/95, P.S.K.R. Salai, R.A. Puram, Chennai – 600 028 Phone Nos. 044– 24958595 / 96 / 97 / 98 Fax: (044) 24958595 Website: www.tnsja.tn.gov.in E-Mail: tnsja.tn@nic.in/tnsja.tn@gmail.com REGIONAL CENTRE, COIMBATORE No.251, Scheme Road, Race Course, Coimbatore - 641 018. Telephone No: 0422 - 2222610/710 E-Mail:tnsja.rc.cbe@gmail.com REGIONAL CENTRE, MADURAI Alagar Koil Road, K.Pudur, Madurai - 625 002. Telephone No: 0452 - 2560807/811 E-Mail:tnsja.rc.mdu@gmail.com I INDEX S. No. IMPORTANT CASE LAW PAGE No. 1. Supreme Court – Civil Cases II 2. Supreme Court – Criminal Cases IV 3. Madras High Court – Civil Cases V 4. Madras High Court – Criminal Cases VII IV SUPREME COURT - CRIMINAL CASES S. No CAUSE TITLE CITATION DATE OF JUDGMENT SHORT NOTES Pg. No 1. Bikash Ranjan Rout vs. State through the Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, New Delhi. 2019 (3) MLJ(Crl) 86 (SC) 16.04.2019 Section 173 and 227 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Discharge of accused – Further investigation – The Magistrate cannot suo moto direct for further investigation under Section 173(8) of the CrPC or direct the reinvestigation into a case at the post-cognizance stage. 4 2. Manju Devi vs. State of Rajasthan and another 2019 (3) MLJ(Crl) 71(SC) :: 2019 (2) SCC (Cri) 765 :: 2019(6) SCC 203 16.04.2019 Section 284, 285 and 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, - Summon to Foreign witness – Video Conferencing – The witness is residing in foreign country, a viable alternative for his examination is through video conferencing 4 3. Kumar Ghimirey vs. State of Sikkim 2019 (2) SCC (Cri) 758 :: 2019(6) SCC 166 22.04.2019 Sections. 386, 374 and 401 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Powers of Appellate court therein to enhance sentence – proper exercise of – Principles restated – enhancement of sentence by High Court without giving notice to accused – not proper. 4 4. Nagji Odhavji Kumbhar & another vs. State of Gujarat 2019 (2) SCC (Cri) 729 :: 2019 (5) SCC 802 23.04.2019 Sections 302, 324 and 96 to 106 (Section 300 exceptions 2 & 4) of Indian Penal Code – Private defence - murder by stabbing with spears – injured witness – complainant party unarmed – right of private defence, not established. 5 5. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, CBI vs. M.Subrahmanyam 2019 (2) SCC (Cri) 796 :: 2019 (6) SCC 357 07.05.2019 Criminal Trial – Section 13 (2) r/w 13(1)(c) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Practice and Procedure - A procedural lapse cannot be placed on a par with what is or may be substantive violation of the law. 5 6. Sasikala Pushpa & others vs. State of Tamil Nadu 2019 (2) SCC (Cri) 826 :: 2019 (6) SCC 477 07.05.2019 Sections 195(1)(b) and 340 of Criminal Procedure Code – The court must satisfy itself as to giving a complaint under Section 195(1)(b) of CrPC – when is prosecution under Section 340 to be launched – principles summarized. 6 7. Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab 2019 (2) SCC (Cri 883 :2019 (6) SCC 638 10.07.2019 Section 319 of Criminal Procedure - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence – exercise of 6 V MADRAS HIGH COURT – CIVIL CASES S. No CAUSE TITLE CITATION DATE OF JUDGMENT SHORT NOTES Pg. No 1. National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. P.Suresh & others 2019 ACJ 1727 19.09.2018 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 147(1) & 163-A r/w Second Schedule( as amended by notification dated 22.05.2018) - The amendment to the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act is long after the accident - retrospectively applicable still any social welfare legislation can be interpreted to the extent of benefiting the meek and poorer section of the society. 7 2. I.Pavithra vs. R.Alan Joy & another 2019 ACJ 1772 28.09.2018 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 - Quantum – Injury – Principles of assessment – loss of earning capacity – the principles to assess loss of earning capacity due to permanent disablement. 7 3. Thirthagiri vs. Chinnathambi Gounder 2019 (2) MWN(Civil) 868 01.02.2019 Sections 8 & 9 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956(30 of 1956) - Rule of succession among collaterals – based on proximity of relationship to deceased male Hindu. 8 4. Dr.Panneerselvam & 12 others vs. Padmasini & 2 others 2019 (4) CTC 907 13.02.2019 Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) – Principle of “Boundary prevails over extent” – Applicability of. 8 5. Thatha Sampath Kumar & another vs. Sri Vupputur Alwar Chetty’s Charities, rep by its Hereditary Trustee, Vupputur Ramesh & 4 others 2019 (5) CTC 212 19.03.2019 Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure - Application under section 92 – Maintainability of - Conditions for. 8 6. S.Gopalakrishna Mudaliar (Deceased) & 3 others vs. Rangarajan 2019 (2) MWN (Civil) 821 20.03.2019 Culivating Tenant - Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants Protection Act and Tamil Nadu Occupants of Kudiyiruppu (conferment of Ownership)Act, 1971 - A person who claimed himself as a cultivating tenant, should contribute his own physical labour or that of any member of his family in the cultivation of the land. 9 VI S. No CAUSE TITLE CITATION DATE OF JUDGMENT SHORT NOTES Pg. No 7. Commissioner, West Arni Panchayat Union, Arni Post, Thiruvannamalai District. vs. St.Joseph Social Welfare Centre, Rep by Brother-Superior Rev. Brother Lourduraj & 3 others 2019 (2) MWN(Civil) 860 25.03.2019 Section 126 of Transfer of Property, 1882 (4 of 1882) - Conditional gift and cancellation thereof – condition not complied – donor revoked gift – unilateral cancellation by donor is valid. 9 8. Manickam.S. vs. Chinnapandiyan 2019 (3) TLNJ 63 25.03.2019 Trial of Civi Suit - Suit for Money based on Pronote in the stage of arguments – seeking to reopen the case to summon the witness. Trial completed and posted for arguments – defendant filed application to reopen the case to summon the witness regarding dispute in signature – dismissed 10 9. Paul Marie Josephine vs. Louise Victorine Esperance Lafontaine 2019 (5) MLJ 207 11.04.2019 Order 7 Rule 11of Civil Procedure Code – Striking of Plaint – Cause of Action – The defendant seeking to strike off the suit proceedings on the ground that the Plaint averments did not constitute cause of action - Maintainability 10 10. T.K.K.N.N.Vysya Charities, Chennai vs. Global Plastics 2019 (3) LW 505 26.04.2019 Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Possession is admitted – notice was issued under Section 106 - when validity of notice is not disputed it cannot be said that notice was not proper – issue under Section. 106 not a triable issue at all in view of the admission made in the trial 10 11. T.Ravichandran vs. K.Kasthuri & 6 others 2019 (3) TLNJ 5 03.06.2019 Section 40 of Court Fees Act, 1870 – Where without seeking to set aside of Sale and by not paying Court Fees under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act, Plaintiff cannot be permitted to seek to setting aside the sale deed by way of declaration of Title 11 1 SUPREME COURT – CIVIL CASES 2019 (4) CTC 122 G.Ratna Raj(Decd) by LRs. Vs. Sri Muthukumarasamy Permanent Fund Ltd., & another Date of Judgment: 01.02.2019 Order 9, Rule 13 & order 17, Rules 2 & 3 of Code of Civil Procedure Defendant set ex parte after cross-examining Plaintiff and before leading their evidence. Preliminary Decree passed, but defendant remained ex parte – Defendants subsequently filed application under Order 9, Rule 13 for setting aside exparte Preliminary Decree – Single Judge of High Court dismissed Application on ground that the Preliminary Decree passed was not exparte Decree – On Appeal, Division Bench allowed Application with costs – Preliminary Decree was exparte Decree – case in hand would not fall under Explanation to Order 17, Rule 2 – In order to attract explanation, party should have led evidence or should have led substantial part of evidence – Defendants in present case not led any evidence – B.Janakiramaiah Chetty vs. A.K.Parthasarthi, 2003 (2) CTC 242(SC), followed. ***** 2019(5) CTC 97 A.Sarojinidevi, Rep by her authorized Power Agent, A.Raja @ Rajaram vs. R.Arumugam Date of Judgment: 25.03.2019 Order 3, Rules 1 & 2, Order 7, Rule 14(1) of Code of Civil Procedure – Rule 16 of Civil Rules of Practice – Section 32 of Advocates Act, 1961 (25 of 1961) – Party-in-person appeared before Trial Court and conducted litigation – Objection raised for appearance of “Party-in-person”, is legally unsustainable. As per the provisions of Order 3, Rule 1, of CPC, any appearance by a Party-in- person either by themselves or through the Power Agent has been recognized by the Code of Civil Procedure. Further the Advocates Act also recognized this deviation from the usual Rule. Today parties appear in person before the Consumer Court, Family Court etc., and they also appear before the High Courts in Public Interest Litigation. The Courts have recognized appearance by parties or their agents subject to the permission of the court and on condition that they would not act adverse to the interest of their Principal. In the instant case the party has appeared so in the trial court without any objection from the respondent herein and the Revision is also filed so and the provisions of Rule 16 of the Civil Rules of Practice has been complied with. Therefore, the objection of the Respondent that the Party-in-person cannot enter appearance and address the court cannot be countenanced and the same is rejected. ***** 2 2019 (6) SCC 82 Jagdish Prasad Patel(Decd) through LR’s & another vs. Shivnath & others Date of Judgment: 09.04.2019 Section 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Suit for declaration of title over immovable property – burden of proof – Plaintiff required to discharge his burden independent of case of defendant. In the suit for declaration of title and possession, the plaintiff could succeed only on the strength of their own title and not on the weakness of the case of the defendants. The burden is on the plaintiffs to establish their title to the suit properties to show that they are entitled for a decree for declaration. The plaintiffs have neither produced the title document i.e, patta-lease which the plaintiffs are relying upon nor proved their right by adducing any other evidence to discharge his burden. ***** 2019 (6) SCC 387 Bhivchandra Shankar More vs. Balu Gangaram More & others Date of judgment:07.05.2019 Order 9, Rule 13 and Section 96(2) of Civil Procedure Code – setting aside of Exparte decree – scope and operation of Or.9 R.13 and S. 96(2) and duties of court when deciding cases under these provisions, explained. It is to be pointed out that the scope of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and Section 96(2) CPC are entirely different. In an application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the Court has to see whether the summons were duly served or not or whether the defendant was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from appearing when the suit was called for hearing. If the Court is satisfied that the defendant was not duly served or that he was prevented for “sufficient cause”, the court may set aside the exparte decree and restore the suit to its original position. In terms of Section 96(2) CPC, the appeal lies from an original decree passed ex parte. In the regular appeal filed under Section 96(2) CPC, the appellate court has wide jurisdiction to go into the merits of the decree. The scope of enquiry under two provisions is entirely different. Merely because the defendant pursued the remedy under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, it does not prohibit the defendant from filing the appeal if his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. ****** 2019 (5) CTC 110 Arshnoor Singh vs. Harpal Kaur & others Date of judgment:01.07.2019 Hindu Law – Section 6 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956(30 of 1956) – Ancestral property – Character of property after Partition – Whether Coparcenary or self-acquired. If succession opened under the old Hindu Law, i.e, prior to the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the parties would be governed by Mitakshara Law. The property inherited by a male Hindu from his Paternal Male Ancestor shall be coparcenary property in his hands vi-+s-a-vis his male descendants upto three degrees below him. The nature of property will remain as coparcenary property even after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. ***** 3 2019 (7) SCC 158 Madhav Prasad Aggarwal & another vs. Axis Bank Limited & another. Date of Judgment 01.07.2019 Order 7, Rule 11(d), Order 6, Rule 16 and Order 11(a) to (f) of Civil Procedure Code - Rejection of a Plaint in part/only against one of the defendants in exercise of power under Order 7, Rule 11(d) – impermissibility of. The Plaint can either be rejected as a whole or not all. It is not permissible to reject plaint qua any particular portion of a plaint including against some of the defendant(s) and continue the same against the others. In no uncertain terms, that if the plaint survives against certain defendant(s) and/or properties, Order 7, Rule 11(d) CPC will have no application at all, and the suit as a whole must then proceed to trial. ***** 2019 (7) SCC 76 Sopanarao & another vs. Syed Mehmood & others Date of Judgment: 03.07.2019 Art.65 or Art.58 of Limitation Act, 1963 – Sections 5 and 34 of Specific Relief Act, 1963 – Suit for declaration of title and possession based on title – Limitation period applicable would be that under Art.65 and not Art.58 – Distinguished from case where only relief sought is that of declaration. The Limitation for filing a suit for possession on the basis of title is 12 years. Merely because one of the reliefs sought is of declaration that will not mean that the outer limitation of 12 years is lost. In a suit filed for possession based on title the plaintiff is bound to prove his title and pray for a declaration that he is the owner of the suit land because his suit on the basis of title cannot succeed unless he is held to have some title over the land. However, the main relief is of possession and, therefore, the suit will be governed by Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This Article deals with a suit for possession of immovable property or any interest therein based on title and the limitation is 12 years from the date when possession of the land becomes adverse to the Plaintiff. * * * * * 6 2019 (2) SCC (Cri) 826 :: 2019 (6) SCC 477 Sasikala Pushpa & others vs. State of Tamil Nadu Date of Judgment:07.05.2019 Sections 195(1)(b) and 340 of Criminal Procedure Code – The court must satisfy itself as to make complaint under Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C – when prosecution under Section 340 to be launched – principles summarized. It is fairly well settled that before lodging of the complaint, it is necessary that the court must be satisfied that it was expedient in the interest of justice to lodge the complaint. It is not necessary that the court must use the actual words of Section 340 Cr.P.C; but the court should record a finding indicating its satisfaction that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an enquiry should be made. Observing that under Section 340 Cr.P.C, the prosecution is to be launched only if it is expedient in the interest of justice and not on mere allegations or to vindicate personal vendetta. Before proceeding to make a complaint regarding commission of an offence referred to in Section 195(1)(b) Cr.P.C, the court must satisfy itself that “ it is expedient in the interest of justice”. The language in Section 340 Cr.P.C. shows that such a course will be adopted only if the interest of justice requires and not in every case. It has to be seen in the facts and circumstances of the present case whether any prima facie case is made out for forgery or making a forged document warranting issuance of directions for lodging the complaint under Sections 193,467,468 and 471 IPC. ***** 2019 (2) SCC (Cri) 883 :: 2019 (6) SCC 638 Sukhpal Singh Khaira vs. State of Punjab Date of Judgment:10.07.2019 Section 319 of Criminal Procedure - Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of an offence – exercise of. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that Section 319 Cr.P.C reflects two important objectives; firstly, the court’s duty to bring home the guilt of all the accused and render complete justice and secondly, the duty of the sate to take every criminal prosecution to its logical end. This Court in a catena of judgments has defined Section 319 Cr.P.C as an enabling provision, especially in the circumstances where the investigating agency had failed to array any person as an accused. This provision empowers the courts for calling such persons to face the trial. The Section stipulates that a “court” may summon any additional accused if it appears from the “evidence”, during the course of any inquiry or trial, that such an individual, not being an accused, has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the named accused. Sub-section (4) of Section 319 Cr.P.C indicates that the proceeding with respect to the summoned individual as per sub-section (1) of Section 319 Cr.P.C, may be de novo or joint trial. ***** 7 MADRAS HIGH COURT – CIVIL CASES 2019 ACJ 1727 National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. P.Suresh & others Date of Judgment: 19.09.2018 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 147(1) & 163-A r/w Second Schedule( as amended by notification dated 22.05.2018) - The amendment to the Second Schedule of Motor Vehicles Act is long after the accident – Any social welfare legislation can be interpreted to the extent of benefiting the meek and poorer section of the society. The compensation payable on account of the death of the deceased is concerned, the apportionment of liability would be that, a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- is payable by the insurance company as per the amended second schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. Though the amendment is long after this accident and though the amendment is not made retrospectively applicable, still any social welfare legislation can be interpreted to the extent of benefiting the meek and poorer section of the society. The remaining compensation is ordered to be paid by the government. 2019 ACJ 1772 I.Pavithra vs. R.Alan Joy & another Date of Judgment: 28.09.2018 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 166 - Quantum – Injury – Principles of assessment – loss of earning capacity – the principles to assess loss of earning capacity due to permanent disablement. The sum and substance of the principles on which the courts have decided the loss of earning power is as follows: 1) The quantum of permanent disability caused by the injuries is to be essentially decided by the medical professionals. 2) The effect of such permanent disability on the earning power of the victim will have to be decided by the Tribunals and Courts. 3) While deciding the said loss of earning power, the Courts and Tribunals are expected to arrive at just and reasonable compensation. 4) The basis for calculation of reasonable compensation would be the extent to which the earning power is reduced due to the injuries caused. This will however involve some guesswork and there cannot be a precise mathematical formula in deciding it. 5) The nature of the work or occupation or profession of the victim will definitely have a direct bearing on the loss of earning power due to the permanent disability caused. ***** 8 2019 (2) MWN(Civil) 868 Thirthagiri vs. Chinnathambi Gounder Date of Judgment: 01.02.2019 Sections 8 & 9 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956(30 of 1956) - Rule of succession among collaterals – based on proximity of relationship to deceased male Hindu. As per Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, if there exists no heirs in Class –I, then the properties of a male Hindu will devolve to those heirs in Class –II of the schedule. If there be no heirs as per both Class –I & II available, then the property of the deceased male Hindu would go to his agnates. As per the Section 9 of the Hindu Succession Act, heirs in Class-I, would exclude every entry in Class-II. The order of succession under Section 9 is the heirs in the early entry excludes those in subsequent entries. Rule of succession among collaterals are based on proximity of their relationship to a deceased male Hindu. ***** 2019 (4) CTC 907 Dr.Panneerselvam & 12 others vs. Padmasini & 2 others Date of Judgment: 13.02.2019 Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882) – Principle of “Boundary prevails over extent” – Applicability of. The Principles boundary will prevail over the extent, is applicable only when the boundaries are referred correctly and the intention of the parties to the documents from the recital lend credence to the boundaries mentioned. In this case, on facts the Title Deeds carry linear measurements, extent and boundaries. The parties do not dispute the linear measurement. In such circumstances, when linear measurements alone is consistent, the general rule that the boundary will prevail over extent is not applicable. ***** 2019 (5) CTC 212 Thatha Sampath Kumar & another vs. Sri Vupputur Alwar Chetty’s Charities, rep by its Hereditary Trustee, Vupputur Ramesh & 4 others Date of Judgment: 19.03.2019 Section 92 of Code of Civil Procedure - Application under Section 92 – Maintainability of - Conditions for. Section 92 of CPC is a complete Code by itself in respect of the suits based upon an alleged breach of any express or constructive Trust created for Public purposes of a Charitable or Religious nature. In order to attract the Application of the Section, the following four conditions are necessary, viz., 1) There must be a Trust, express or constructive, for Public purposes of a Charitable or Religious nature; 2) The Plaint must allege a breach of trust or necessity for direction as to administration of that Trust; 3) The Suit must be in the interests of the Public, i.e., it must be brought in a representative capacity for the benefit of the Public and not to enforce individual rights; and 4) The relief claimed should be one of the reliefs set out in the Section. ***** 11 was filed. As per the amended provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the landlord need not wait for anything and he can proceed with eviction, in the manner known to law. It is an admitted fact that the landlord has specifically conceded that he has not taken any steps without due process of law. In that event, there is no requirement to decide any issue under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, much less, it is not triable issue at all, in view of the admission made in the trial. ***** 2019 (3) TLNJ 5 T.Ravichandran vs. K.Kasthuri & 6 others Date of Judgment:03.06.2019 Section 40 of Court Fees Act, 1870 – Where without seeking the set aside of Sale and by not paying Court Fees under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act, Plaintiff cannot be permitted for seeking to set aside the sale deed by way of declaration of Title. On a reading of the entire Plaint, it is clear that the Plaintiff, though alleges certain irregularities in the preparation of the document, has signed the same with intention to execute a deed. The invalidity is stated only because the first defendant did not pay the consideration thereafter, that will not exfacie invalidate the document which has been executed voluntarily. Even if the allegations are true, before Court, these documents are purported to have been executed by the Plaintiff. The same cannot be declared as invalid without setting aside the same. By declaration, Plaintiff is really asking for setting aside the deed. Naturally, she has to pay the Court fee under Section 40 of the Court Fees Act(Old Section 7 (IV-A) of the Madras Court Fees Act), which deals with setting aside a document. ***** 12 MADRAS HIGH COURT – CRIMINAL CASES 2019 (3) MLJ(Crl) 188 K.G. Denim Finance Limited, Coimbatore, Rep by D.Ramesh vs. Salem Textiles Limited & another Date of Judgment: 09.04.2019 Sections 138 and 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – Dishonour of Cheque – Novation – Plea of Novation not pleaded by accused - when accused pleaded that liability had already been discharged, question of Novation for new contract substituting old contract did not arise. The plea of novation not pleaded by the accused. He not only failed to plead that the defence but a contra plea has been taken by the accused. When the accused has pleaded that the liability has already been discharged, the question of novation or new contract substituting the old contract does not arise. The correspondence between the parties does not indicate that the debts were discharged by the accused. Neither it indicated the old contract has been rescinded or submitted by any new contract. The complainant is bound to succeed not only on the presumption clause under Section 139. But he has positively proved the liability of the accused through the evidence. Therefore, the Lower Appellate Court judgment being perverse and against the settled principles of law, this Criminal Appeal is to be allowed. 2019(3) M LJ(Crl) 394 Karthikeyan & others vs. State, Rep by Inspector of Police, Kaveripattinam Police station, Krishnagiri District Date of Judgment:17.06.2019 Sections 216 and 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Conditions request is to recall off prosecution witnesses by the prosecution for further examination. Prosecution should not be allowed to resort to filing petition under Section 311 to fill up lacuna in a prosecution case, unless the facts and circumstances of the case makes it apparent that no exercise of power by Court will result in serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice. The Court below was swayed more by the fact that the materials that were collected also makes out a charge for another offence and therefore, court below wanted to recall PW1 to PW5 for further examination by prosecution. This reasoning given by the Court below will not stand the test of law. If the Court below wanted to alter the charges by adding offence, Court below ought to have followed procedure contemplated under Section 216. However, the Court below did not alter the charges except for making an observation to that effect and it has proceeded to recall PW1 to PW5 for further examination by prosecution. Therefore, there is no clarity in the order passed by the Court below and the same requires interference of this Court. ***** 13 2019 (2) LW(Crl) 130 R.Kiruba Kanmani vs. L.Rajan Date of Judgment:17.06.2019 Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code - Section 20(3) Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act - Unmarried daughter – Maintenance by father – scope. Even though Section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code restricts the payment of maintenance to the children till they attain majority, when it comes to the daughter, Courts have taken a consistent stand that even though the daughter has attained majority, she will be entitled for maintenance till she remains unmarried by virtue of Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. In order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the Courts have taken a consistent stand that the petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C can be entertained without pushing her to file an independent petition seeking for maintenance under Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. 2019 (3) MLJ(Crl)211 Dr.Sunder vs. State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Inspector of Police, K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station, Law and Order, Chennai. Date of Judgment: 18.06.2019 Section 311 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Eschewing of Evidence – Failure to cross examine – Whether evidence recorded from witness by competent court be eschewed at later point of time – whether lower court right in closing evidence of PW2 to PW4 on ground that effective steps were not taken to pay process fee to issue summons to witnesses. Petitioner had right and opportunity to cross examine PW1 when he was examined in chief. Later, after nearly one year, Petitioner chose to file a petition to recall PW-1 along with three other witnesses and the said Petition came to be allowed. Prosecution was not able to find out the whereabouts of PW1. This fact by itself will not efface the evidence of PW1 recorded by Court below while he was examined in chief. Therefore, there is no question of eschewing the evidence of PW1 as sought for by the Petitioner. Petitioner must be given an opportunity to cross examine PW2 to PW4 since the application filed by the Petitioner to recall PW2 to PW4 was already allowed by the Court below. The cross examination of these witnesses will have a bearing while the court considers the probative value of the evidence of PW1 and in order to test whether the evidence of Pw2 to PW4 corroborates the testimony of PW1. Hence, petition against dismissal of petition to eschew evidence of PW1, dismissed – Petition against closure of evidence, allowed. ***** 2019 (2) TLNJ 49 (Criminal) Dharmarajan & 3 others vs. The State, Rep by the Inspector of Police, Ammapettai Police Station, Thanjavur District. Date of Judgment:04.07.2019 Sections 341, 365, 342 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 6 & 8 of Protection of Child from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,– Complaint of rape and outraged the modesty of victim against accused – testimony of the P.W.2 can also be the sole basis to record