COMPACT DISC (C.D) RECODING IS A DOCUMENT OF EVIDENCE

The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Shamsher Singh Verma Versus State of Haryana decided matter in respect of Compact Disc (C.D) which is recording of a conversation as a document in evidence Act.

In the Criminal Appeal by Shamsher Singh Verma filed before the Supreme Court against the order of High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, whereby the said Court had affirmed the order passed by the Special Judge, Kaithal, rejecting the application of accused for getting exhibited the C.D. filed in defence by the accused.

The C.D. consists of recording of the conversation between the father of victim, son and wife of the accused.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the C.D. is also a document under the evidence Act. The C.D. can be played to enable the public prosecutor to admit or deny the document and to get it verified by the forensic science laboratory

Prepared by: S. Hemanth
Advocate at Hemanth & Associates

A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY USING SERVICES IS A BODY CORPORATE AND NOT A NATURAL PERSON WHO NEEDS TO EARN HIS LIVELIHOOD

The complainant a private limited company availing services of bank for business purposes, its complaint is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum. The company is a body corporate and not a natural person who needs to earn his livelihood.

​

M/s Recorders and Medicare Systems Pvt. Ltd. through its Director and authorized signatory, Shri Jalesh Grover, has filed complaint before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, under section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the State Bank of Patiala, claiming deficiency on the part of the respondent/opposite party bank on account of its failure to renew the insurance policy which it had been doing in its capacity as Monitoring Institution of the complainant Company and for which it had charged fees as consideration for its services.

​Since the services of the respondent Bank have been availed of by the complainant for business/commercial purposes, its complaint is not maintainable before the consumer Fora under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in view of the provisions of section 2 (1) (d). Although the explanation appended to section 2 (1) (d) of the Act provides that the "commercial purpose" does not include the services availed by the person exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. However, the explanation restricting the scope of the commercial purpose is of no avail to the complainant because complainant is a body corporate and not a natural person who needs to indulge to earn his livelihood. In view of this, we are of considered view that the complainant is not covered under the definition of consumer as defined under section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act and as such the complaint is not maintainable before the consumer Forum.

The above was held by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in ​M/s. Recorders and Medicare System Pvt. Ltd Vs ​State Bank of Patiala (SBP) and others.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ON SECTION 6 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT – DAUGHTERS RIGHT TO PROPERTY

The Hon’ble Supreme Court decided on the matter whether Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 will have retrospective effect. The Hon’ble Court held that an amended of a substantive provision is always prospective.

The following are most important declarations from the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Prakash Vs Phulavath, which affect the right of a daughter in respect of the property:

1. The rights under the amendment are applicable to living daughters of living coparceners as on 9^th September, 2005 irrespective of when such daughters are born.

2. Partitions effected before 20^th December, 2004 remain unaffected. The partition means a partition made by registered deed or effected by decree of a Court. In any case statutory notational partition remains valid and effective.

3. An amendment of a substantive provision is always prospective unless either expressly or by necessary intendment it is retrospective.

4. Birth of the daughter after the amendment is not necessary, all that is required is that daughter should be alive and her father also is alive on the date of the amendment.

5. If the father had died prior to the commencement of the amendment (here, father self earned property died intestate) the amendment provision will not apply.

Prepared by: S. Hemanth

Advocate at Hemanth & Associates