Failure To Acknowledge Section 80 CPC Notice Or Communicate Stand May Lead To Adverse Inference Against Government

 

The Supreme Court on Monday (March 24) expressed concerns about the declining significance of the notices under Section 80 CPC noting that in practice, such notices have often become empty formalities.

The Court observed that the government/public authorities must acknowledge the notice issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) in all seriousness, and must not sit over them to force the citizens into the vagaries of litigation. It added that when a notice is sent to the government by a litigant, it serves as an opportunity for the Government or a public officer to assess the legal merits of a claim and potentially settle it if it appears to be just and reasonable.

Further, the Court stated that an adverse inference would be drawn against the government for not acknowledging the notice or informing the litigant about its stand on the issue raised in the notice.

“The purpose of law is the advancement of justice. The least that was required in the present case was for the State Authorities to acknowledge the notice issued by the appellants herein and inform them as regards their stance. We make it abundantly clear that the Public Authorities must take statutory notice issued to them in all seriousness. The Public Authorities must not sit over such notices and force the citizens to the vagaries of litigation. They are expected to let the plaintiff know their stand within the statutory period or in any case before he embarks upon the litigation. In certain cases, courts may be obliged to draw adverse presumption against the Public Authorities for not acknowledging the notice or telling the plaintiff of its stand and in the absence of that, a stand taken during the course of trial may be considered as an afterthought. This is exactly what has happened in the present case.”

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Pardiwala held in the Appellant's favour holding that the State failed to prove the land was "assigned" to claim resumption under the 1977 Act. The Court noted that the Appellants' possession since 1970, supported by Pattadar Passbook and revenue receipts, raised a presumption of ownership under Section 113 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (formerly Section 110, Indian Evidence Act), and the State's inaction for decades (1943–1995) undermined its claim.

In addition to the aforesaid, the Court highlighted the lackadaisical approach of the Respondent in not responding to the Section 80 notice sent by the Appellant. It criticized the State for ignoring the appellants' statutory notice, forcing litigation.

The Court emphasized that public authorities must respond to notices to avoid adverse inferences. Because the Respondent failed to respond to the Appellant's notice, he was dragged into the vagaries of litigation, the Court said that the State's silence on the appellants' Section 80 notice weakened its defense.

Since, the Appellants were dispossessed from the Suit property long ago, and a structure was installed by the Respondent on the Suit property, therefore instead of demolishing that part of the construction made over the Suit land, the Court asked them to compensate the appellants in terms of money and ordered a payment of Rs. 70 Lakhs compensation to the Appellant.

Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed.

Case Title: YERIKALA SUNKALAMMA & ANR. VERSUS STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE & ORS.

Sale Under Power Of Attorney Unaffected By Subsequent Cancellation Of PoA

 The Supreme Court has observed that sale transactions carried out on the basis of a valid Power of Attorney (PoA) cannot be sought to be set aside later on the ground that the PoA was cancelled subsequently.

Holding so, the Court affirmed an order of the Trial Court rejecting a plaint, which sought to annul certain past sale transactions on the basis of the subsequent cancellation of the PoA.

The PoA was executed by the plaintiff in the name of the first respondent on 15.10.2004. In 2018, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking to annul certain sale transactions carried out between 2004-2006 and in 2009. The plaintiff claimed that he got knowledge about the sale transactions only on 21.09.2015 and the suit was filed within the three-year limitation period from such date. The power of attorney was cancelled on 22.09.2015.

"We are clear in our minds that the cancellation does not affect the prior conveyances made which are clearly on the strength of the power conferred on the appellant. There is no contention raised as to the power of attorney having not conferred the power to enter into conveyances or that such power of attorney was executed by reason of a fraud or coercion employed on the executant. The power holder having exercised the authority conferred; to convey the properties in the name of the purchasers, the cancellation of the power of attorney will have no effect on the conveyances carried out under the valid power conferred. Nor would it confer the person who executed the power of attorney any cause of action, by virtue of a cancellation of the power conferred by a subsequent document, to challenge the valid exercise of the power when it existed."

V Ravikumar v S Kumar

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 36(3) - for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money, due regard has to be given to the provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of the CPC.

 A. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Sections 9 and 36 - Section 9 of the Arbitration Act confers wide power on the Court to pass orders securing the amount in dispute in arbitration, whether before the commencement of the Arbitral proceedings, during the Arbitral proceedings or at any time after making of the arbitral award, but before its enforcement in accordance with Section 36 of the Arbitration Act - All that the Court is required to see is, whether the applicant for interim measure has a good prima facie case, whether the balance of convenience is in favour of interim relief as prayed for being granted and whether the applicant has approached the court with reasonable expedition.

B. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 36(2) - Once an application under subsection (2) of Section 36 is filed for stay of operation of the arbitral award, the Court might subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, grant stay of the operation of such award, for reasons to be recorded in writing - Court is empowered to impose such conditions as it might deem fit and may grant stay of operation of the award subject to furnishing of security covering entire amount of the award including interest.

C. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Section 36(3) - While considering an application for grant of stay in the case of an arbitral award for payment of money, due regard has to be given to the provisions for grant of stay of a money decree under the provisions of the CPC.

Civil Procedure Code, 1908, S.96-Appeal--Withdrawal of Appeal-­ Dismissal of appeal "as not pressed"--If the appellant is a juristic entity created under the Act, Appellant Court have to ensure strict compliance of the relevant provisions of the Act under which they have are created coupled with ensuring compliance of relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure for forgoing their right to prosecute the appeal on merits

sclaw.in

Undue Influence—Merely because the parties are related to each other or merely because the executant was old or of weak character, no presumption of undue influence can arise Redemption of Mortgage—High Court has passed a decree for redemption of mortgage simpliciter without following the provisions of CPC—Impugned order set aside-- Muslim Law—Oral Gift—Conditions for making valid oral gift under the Mohammedan law are:- (i) there should be wish or intention on the part of the donor to gift; (ii) acceptance by the donee; and (iii) taking possession of the subject matter of the gift by the donee.

sclaw.in

Ownership—Documents like several permissions of the municipality and tax receipts might imply possession but they cannot be relied to confer title of immovable property upon the holder of such documents

sclaw.in

Cost--Award of cost in Civil Suit--Both the parties did not come to Court with clean hands--High Court directed each party to pay cost of Rs. One lakh--Order upheld.

sclaw.in

Infringement of Trademark-Passing of-Division Bench of High Court held that substitution of letter 'T' for letter 'O' would create confusion on the ground of deceptive similarity—Reputation of plaintiffs Trademark has been established and there is likelihood of its damage—Findings of Division bench upheld

sclaw.in

Remand of Case—After allowing the application for additional evidence in appeal High Court not justified in remanding the case to trial court for recording of the evidence—It can be done by competently by first Appellate Court Additional evidence of appellate stage—Allowing of application does not mean that document are to be directly exhibited as record on file—Such documents are required to be proved as per law before being considered

sclaw.in

Execution of decree—Objections—Revisionary Court is under legal obligation to decide the legality and correctness of the findings recorded by the executing court on its merits rather than remanding it to executing court Execution of Decree—Objections—Revision—Additional evidence by way of documents not to be placed in revision against dismissal of objections by executing court

sclaw.in

Auction Sale—Deposit of Bid amount—An amount of bid in which the decree holder is a purchaser can be set off—In present case, respondent-corporation is not only auction purchaser but also decree holder, there is no question of deposit of the auction amount as there was no other prospective buyer to offence bid.

sclaw.in

Exparte decree—Setting aside of—Delay of about 4 years in filing application condoned—Keeping in view that appellant did not follow up the matter due to pendency of the appeal. in High Court against the grant of interim injunction

sclaw.in

Lok Adalat--No party can be punished for failure to reach a settlement before Lok Adalat. Adjournment--When a counsel who is ready in the pre-lunch session, seeks accommodation in the post lunch session on ground of a sudden illness or physical ailment, Court cannot refuse a short accommodation.

sclaw.in

Amendment of Plaint—Liberal Approach—Courts should be liberal in allowing amendment where the suit is still at initial stage

sclaw.in

Second Appeal--Although High Court has jurisdiction to formulate a substantial question of law at a subsequent stage but it should not be done without assigning any reason and without giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the respondents.

sclaw.in

Possession--Plaintiff filed suit for possession on basis of title--Plaintiff has to prove his title--Weakness of the defence or the failure of the defendants to establish the title set up by them, would not enable the plaintiff to a decree--Appeal dismissed

sclaw.in

Decree against dead person--Death of defendant pending appeal--An application made for substitution of legal representatives, but no order passed by Court through inadvertence--Decree drawn against dead defendant--Decree executable against legal representatives--It was essentially a technical error--Held, act of court should do no harm to a litigant-- Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 47--Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 23 Rule 2.

sclaw.in

Written Statement--Acceptance of--Trial Court can accept written statement after 90 days.

sclaw.in

Transfer of Suit--Suit for damages filed at Chennai by husband--Suit transferred to Kolkata where wife residing with 2 years old child.

sclaw.in

Decree remains valid unless set aside. Executing Court reduced to interest from 18% to 14%--High Court further reduced the same to 9%--Executing Court cannot go beyond decree--Executing Court to execute the same as it is.

sclaw.in