Monthly Archives: August 2015

Criminal Intimidation – Meaning of

A reading of the definition of ‘criminal intimidation’ would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation or property of the person threatened or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do. Mere expression of any words without any intention to cause alarm would not be sufficient. Manik Taneja v. State of Karnataka, (2015) 7 SCC 423.

Leave a comment

Filed under Criminal Intimidation, Criminal Law

Manufacturing Process – Definition of

In Employees State Insurance v. Duncan Gleneagles Hospital Ltd, 2005 LLR 1071 it was held as under:
“The definition of ‘manufacturing process’ includes otherwise treating or adopting any article or substance with a view to its use, sale transport, delivery or disposal. The outcome of the test is recorded through various machineries electronically operated or otherwise. In some cases, these are recorded in special kind of papers or any photo plates or X-ray plates or certain kinds of devices recording Ultra sonographic tests. The process of these tests were not carried on either for making, altering repairing, ornamenting, finishing or otherwise treating or adopting any article or substance, namely, the X-ray plates or the papers or the sonographic records with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal. These articles or substances were used in aid of the process for the examination or the tests carried on. It is the report of the test, which is produced. It is the service of preparing the report or diagnosis is the service rendered. The process is not undertaken for the purpose of production of any article or substance in the form of developed X-ray films or sonographic records or anything else. If it is interpreted in such a manner, then in that event, even printing floppies or writing disks or typing of papers in course of any business or commerce or any office or administration would also amount to undertaking of manufacturing process since floppies, disks, Xerox and typing are undertaken for the use or disposal. But if the pathological laboratory undertakes tapping of blood and process the same and use the same for the purpose of sale or transfusion or otherwise use thereof, the same may be a manufacturing process. But the pathological tests would not amount to manufacturing process even though the production of the developed X-ray films or sonography reports may amount to manufacturing process otherwise in some other context. It has to be reconciled with the purpose and object for which it is being used or utilized. Rajesh Saigal v. State of Haryana, 2015 (146) FLR 588.

Leave a comment

Filed under Commercial Law, Manufacturing Process

Composite Negligence and Contributory Negligence – Difference Between

Composite Negligence refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrongdoers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrongdoers. In such a case, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrongdoer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. When the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory negligence. Khenyei v. New India Assurance Company Ltd., 2015 (3) AWC 2945.

Leave a comment

Filed under Civil Law, Negligence

Increments – During Suspension

Increment has a definite concept in service law jurisprudence. It is an increase or addition on a fixed scale; it is a regular increase in salary on such a scale. As noted in SBI v. Central Government Labour Court, (1972) 3 SCC 595, under the labour and industrial laws, an increment is when in a timescale of pay an employee advances from the lower point of scale to the higher by periodic additions. In other words, it is addition in the same scale and not to a higher scale. An increment is an incidence of employment and an employee gets an increment by working the full year and drawing full salary. During the period of suspension, the contract of service remains suspended. The order of suspension by the departmental enquiry has the effect of temporarily suspending the relations between the master and servant with the consequence that the servant is not bound to render service and, therefore, an employee is not entitled to increments during this period which is taken as period not spent on duty. State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh Kanwar, (2014) 13 SCC 622.

Leave a comment

Filed under Employment Law, Increments During Suspension

Mortgage in the name of Minor

As per the Contract Act, 1872, it is clearly stated that for an agreement to become a contract, the parties must be competent to contract, wherein age of majority is a condition for competency. A deed of mortgage is a contract and it cannot be held that a mortgage in the name of a minor is valid, simply because it in the interest of the minor unless he/she is represented by her natural guardian or guardian appointed by the Court. The law cannot be read differently for a minor who is a mortgagor and a minor who is a mortgagee as there are rights and liabilities in respect of the immovable property would flow out of such a contract on both of them. Mathai Mathai v. Joseph Mary, (2015) 5 SCC 622.

1 Comment

Filed under Contract Law, Mortgage