Royals Get Reprieve : To take Part in Auction

Source: Times of India

Bombay High court upholds the interim order of independent arbitrator Justice BN Srikrishna arbitrator's stay on IPL franchise Rajasthan Royals termination made by BCCI. 

Meanwhile, the court allowed Rajasthan Royals to take part in IPL 4 auction which will be held in January. 

However, the court has set financial conditions to Royals while upholding the stay and also directs Royals to file affidavit before it on January 3 specifying full details about mode of control. 

The BCCI had on October 10 decided to terminate the franchise agreement of Rajasthan Royals, along with that of Kings XI Punjab, for alleged breach of agreement by the two franchises. 

Royals had challenged the termination before the Bombay High Court.

Ex-CJI Balakrishnan received Letter on A. Raja: SC judge

Justice Gokhale

Source : Times of India

In an embarrassment to former CJI K.G. Balakrishnan, Supreme Court judge H L Gokhale on Tuesday contradicted his claim that he was not aware that it was former Union telecom minister A Raja, who had tried to influence a Madras High Court judge in a criminal case. 

In a statement, Justice Gokhale, who was the chief justice of the Madras High Court at that time, said that in his letter to Justice Balakrishnan, the then CJI, he had clearly referred to the name of Raja. 

Justice Gokhale's statement totally contradicts Justice Balakrishnan's claim that there was no mention of any Union minister in the report sent by Justice Gokhale, then High Court Chief Justice, on Justice S Reghupathi episode. 

"I regret to say that the allegations are absolutely incorrect," Balakrishan had said last week referring to news reports that he had suppressed a letter purportedly written by Justice Reghupathi to him when he was Chief Justice of India. 

In a statement on Tuesday, Justice Gokhale said, "The former CJI has stated in his press conference that in my letter I did not mention the name of any Union minister having talked to Justice Reghupathi over phone to influence him. 

"With respect to this statement I may point out that Justice Reghupathi's letter was already with him and in the second paragraph thereof justice Reghupathi had specifically mentioned the name of Raja. 

"I had no personal knowledge about the incident and observations in my reply wherein are in conformity with the contents of Justice Reghupathi's," Justice Gokhale said. 

News reports had alleged that Balakrishan had suppressed that letter which had purportedly alleged that Raja had tried to influence Justice Reghupathi which cast aspersion on him (CJI) that he had committed dereliction of duty. 

"When this incident was reported in the media, I sought for a report from the then Chief Justice of Madras High Court Justice Gokhale and he sent me a report wherein nothing was mentioned about any Union minister having made a telephonic talk with Justice Reghupathi to influence him," Balakrishan had said.

Accused Entitled to Copy of FIR : Directions & Guidelines : Delhi High Court

Justice Deepak Misra

You may recall our news bite relating to the Direction given by the Delhi High Court to put all FIRs online, in the case titled as Court on its Own Motion through Mr. Ajay Choudhary vs State. The Bench speaking through Chief Justice Deepak Misra has laid down certain guidelines for the said purpose. The relevant extract from the above Judgment is reproduced below;

"46. Keeping in view the law in the field, the entitlement of the accused, the mechanism suggested by the learned Additional Solicitor General as as the learned counsel for the petitioner and regard being had to the of striking of balance, as had been referred to earlier, we proceed to our conclusions and the directions as enumerated below:

(A) An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report an earlier stage than as prescribed under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

(B) An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in criminal case and his name may be finding place in a Information Report can submit an application through representative / agent / parokar for grant of a certified copy before concerned police officer or to the Superintendent of Police payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a copy the court. On such application being made, the copy shall be within twenty-four hours.

(C) Once the First Information Report is forwarded by the police to the concerned Magistrate or any Special Judge, on an being filed for certified copy on behalf of the accused, the same be given by the court concerned within two working days. aforesaid direction has nothing to do with the statutory inhered under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.

(D) The copies of the FIR, unless reasons recorded regard being had to nature of the offence that the same is sensitive in nature, should uploaded on the Delhi Police website within twenty-four hours lodging of the FIR so that the accused or any person connected the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application the court as per law for redressal of his grievances.

(E) The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website of Police shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Commissioner of Police and that too by way of a speaking order. decision so taken by the Deputy Commissioner of Police shall also duly communicated to the Area magistrate.

(F) The word 'sensitive' apart from the other aspects which may thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy regard being to the nature of the FIR.

(G) In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of nature of the case, a person grieved by the said action, after his identity, can submit a representation with the Commissioner Police who shall constitute a committee of three high officers and committee shall deal with the said grievance within three days the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to grieved person.

(H) The Commissioner of Police shall constitute the committee eight weeks from today.

(I) In cases wherein decisions have been taken not to give copies of FIR regard being had to the sensitive nature of the case, it will open to the accused / his authorized representative / parokar to file application for grant of certified copy before the court to which FIR has been sent and the same shall be provided in quite by the concerned court not beyond three days of the submission of application.

(J) The directions for uploading the FIR on the website of the Police shall be given effect from 1st February, 2011.

47. A copy of this order be sent to the Commissioner of Police to appropriate action to effectuate the directions in an apposite so that grievances of this nature do not travel to court.

48. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of."

Adverse Possession : The Law

Justice Prasad

The Supreme Court in Chatti Konati Rao & Ors. vs Palle Venkata Subba Rao has explained the underlying principles in cases pertaining to claims of Adverse Possession. The Bench speaking through Justice C.K. Prasad held as under;

"What is adverse possession, on whom the burden of proof lie, the approach of the court towards such plea etc. have been the subject matter of decision in a large number of cases. In the case of T. Anjanappa v. Somalingappa (2006) 7 SCC 570, it has been held that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner and the classical requirement of acquisition of title by adverse possession is that such possessions are in denial of the true owner's title. Relevant passage of the aforesaid judgment reads as follows : 

"20. It is well-recognised proposition in law that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. Adverse possession really means the hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession proved must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The classical requirements of acquisition of title by adverse possession are that such possession in denial of the true owner's title must be peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be open and hostile enough to be capable of being known by the parties interested in the property, though it is not necessary that there should be evidence of the adverse possessor actually informing the real owner of the former's hostile action."

13. What facts are required to prove adverse possession have succinctly been enunciated by this Court in the case of Karnataka Board of Wakf vs. Government of India and Ors. (2004) 10 SCC 779. It has also been observed that a person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour and since such a person is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish necessary facts to establish his adverse possession. Paragraph 11 of the judgment which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows :

"11. In the eye of the law, an owner would be deemed to be in possession of a property so long as there is no intrusion. Non-use of the property by the owner even for a long time won't affect his title. But the position will be altered when another person takes possession of the property and asserts a right over it. Adverse possession is a hostile possession by clearly asserting hostile title in denial of the title of the true owner. It is a well-settled principle that a party claiming adverse possession must prove that his possession is "nec vi, nec clam, nec precario", that is, peaceful, open and continuous. The possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent to show that their possession is adverse to the true owner. It must start with a wrongful disposition of the rightful owner and be actual, visible, exclusive, hostile and continued over the statutory period. (See S.M. Karim v. Bibi Sakina AIR 1964 SC 1254, Parsinni v. Sukhi (1993) 4 SCC 375 and D.N. Venkatarayappa v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 567) Physical fact of exclusive possession and the animus possidendi to hold as owner in exclusion to the actual owner are the most important factors that are to be accounted in cases of this nature. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law. Therefore, a person who claims adverse possession should show: 

(a) on what date he came into possession, 

(b) what was the nature of his possession, 

(c) whether the factum of possession was known to the other party, 

(d) how long his possession has continued, and 

(e) his possession was open and undisturbed. 

A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour. Since he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish his adverse possession. [Mahesh Chand Sharma (Dr.) v. Raj Kumari Sharma (1996) 8 SCC 128]"

14. In view of the several authorities of this Court, few whereof have been referred above, what can safely be said that mere possession however long does not necessarily mean that it is adverse to the true owner. It means hostile possession which is expressly or impliedly in denial of the title of the true owner and in order to constitute adverse possession the possession must be adequate in continuity, in publicity and in extent so as to show that it is adverse to the true owner. The possession must be open and hostile enough so that it is known by the parties interested in the property. The plaintiff is bound to prove his title as also possession within 12 years and once the plaintiff proves his title, the burden shifts on the defendant to establish that he has perfected his title by adverse possession. Claim by adverse possession has two basic elements i.e. the possession of the defendant should be adverse to the plaintiff and the defendant must continue to remain in possession for a period of 12 years thereafter. Animus possidendi as is well known a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. Mere possession does not ripen into possessory title until possessor holds property adverse to the title of the true owner for the said purpose. The person who claims adverse possession is required to establish the date on which he came in possession, nature of possession, the factum of possession, knowledge to the true owner, duration of possession and possession was open and undisturbed. A person pleading adverse possession has no equities in his favour as he is trying to defeat the rights of the true owner and, hence, it is for him to clearly plead and establish all facts necessary to establish adverse possession. The courts always take unkind view towards statutes of limitation overriding property rights. Plea of adverse possession is not a pure question of law but a blended one of fact and law.