HTML

Friday, August 18, 2017

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONTRACT AND AGREEMENT


 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONTRACT AND AGREEMENT

 rickjohn Posted 14 Jun 2017 Post Comment Visitors: 4037

Difference between Contract and Agreement 

“All contracts are an agreement, but all agreements are not contracts” is an old statement which means that agreement is different from a contract. We may come across hundreds of agreement daily without knowing the fact that it may or may not bound us legally. Agreements which bind us legally are known as a contract.


An agreement can be made without legal involvement whereas a contract needs to be legalized. Agreements are generally made are usually held by taking someone’s word and for small things. When there is an involvement of important issues where a promise cannot suffice then a contract is made. Even though contracts and agreements are used for the same purpose, a contract is said to be a professional agreement.

There are different types of contracts which can be developed. Financing contract is one which created between a debtor and a lender. Contracts created between workers and the person who is paying them to complete a certain project is known as project management contract. Other types of contracts are building contracts, service contracts, and even marriage can be also considered marriage as contract. Agreements are differ from contract in that they are made on a personal understanding with a trust that a person will complete their half of the agreement. Agreements can also be made for the forgoing things; however it does not provide legal guarantee that other person should fulfill the agreement. Agreements are generally made between friends or family members and are similar to promises. Agreements can be broken as there are no legal repercussions.

For a contract to become binding, there are certain essential elements that it must possess. It must demonstrate universal acceptance and also plausible. Whereas when an agreement is made, only a verbal acceptance by the parties involved is needed. Agreement can also be made if the stipulations are impossible. The parties are able to modify an agreement as they see fit and when they want.

Agreements and contract are created with the same purpose. The difference lies in the formality of the contract and the personalization of an agreement.

Click here for latest legal news updates

Note:- We try our level best to avoid any kind of abusive content posted by users. Kindly report to us if you notice any, pathlegal@gmail.com


Post Comment Post Comment
     

Enter the characters in the box below


Back   Submit 



Q/ADelhiNoidaMumbaiPuneKolkataHyderabadBangaloreChennaiIndiaSite mapCopyright @ Pathmpor Consultants Pvt Ltd
  Powered by Translate
Terms and ConditionsDisclaimerPrivacy Policy    

Thursday, August 17, 2017

Adv 45b of Kerala stamp act 1959

https://indiankanoon.org/search/?formInput=kerala%20stamp%20act+doctypes:kerala

Friday, August 11, 2017

List Of Basic Legal Terms

List Of Basic Legal Terms

1. ad valorem: - According to the value; in proportion to value. 

2. air rights: - Rights to use the air above land; air rights accompany land ownership of land, with some limitations, e.g., a landowner has the right to recover damages from airlines that interfere with his or her use of the land, but is not allowed to pollute the air. 

3. Aleatory: - Random, uncertain, depending on chance. 

4. Anton Piller: - order: an order by the High Court. It gives the applicant permission to search the defendant's premises for evidence, inspect it and take it away. It is intended to prevent evidence being destroyed or hidden which would be relevant to the case. (Since April 1999, this has been known as a 'search order'.) 

5. Bailiwick: - the area over which a bailiff has jurisdiction. 

6. Bona vacantia: - goods or an estate belonging to nobody. 

7. Cartel: - an agreement between businesses to restrict competition and keep prices high. 

8. Caveat: - a warning. 

9. Chattel: - any property except freehold land. 

10. Corpus delicti: - Is the body of a person who has been killed unlawfully; or the facts which make up an offense. 

11. Euthanasia: -killing someone to end their suffering.

Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Monday, July 3, 2017

കുട്ടികളെ തല്ലിയാല്‍ അധ്യാപകനെ പ്രോസിക്യൂട്ട് ചെയ്യാനാകില്ല: ഹൈക്കോടതി

കുട്ടികളെ തല്ലിയാല്‍ അധ്യാപകനെ പ്രോസിക്യൂട്ട് ചെയ്യാനാകില്ല: ഹൈക്കോടതി

കൊച്ചി: അച്ചടക്കം പഠിപ്പിക്കാന്‍ കുട്ടികളെ തല്ലുന്ന അധ്യാപകനെ പ്രോസിക്യൂട്ട് ചെയ്യാനാകില്ലെന്ന് കേരള ഹൈക്കോടതി. തൃശൂരിലെ എയ്ഡഡ് സ്‌കൂള്‍ അധ്യാപകന്‍ പ്രിന്‍സ് കുര്യന്‍ നല്‍കിയ പരാതി പരിഗണിക്കവെയാണ് ജസ്റ്റിസ് പി ഉബൈദിന്റെ പരാമര്‍ശം.

വിദ്യാര്‍ത്ഥിനിയുടെ പിതാവ് 2014ല്‍ തനിക്കെതിരെ നല്‍കിയ ക്രിമിനല്‍ കേസ് റദ്ദ് ചെയ്യണമെന്ന് ആവശ്യപ്പെട്ടായിരുന്നു അധ്യാപകന്റെ ഹര്‍ജി. ക്ലാസില്‍ ശ്രദ്ധിക്കുന്നില്ലെന്ന് ആരോപിച്ച് അധ്യാപകന്‍ മകളുടെ കൈകള്‍ പിടിച്ച് ബലമായി ഞെരുക്കിയെന്ന് കാട്ടിയായിരുന്നു രക്ഷിതാവ് കേസ് കൊടുത്തത്. കേസില്‍ കുട്ടികളോടുള്ള ക്രൂരത(ജുവൈനല്‍ ജസ്റ്റീസ് ആക്ടിലെ സെക്ഷന്‍ 23 പ്രകാരം), മാനസിക പീഡനം എന്നീ കുറ്റങ്ങളാണ് അധ്യാപകനെതിരെ ചുമത്തിയിരുന്നത്.

'അച്ചടക്കം പഠിപ്പിക്കാനായി കുട്ടിയെ തല്ലിയ അധ്യാപകനെ, മര്‍ദ്ദിച്ചെന്ന് ആരോപിച്ച് പ്രോസിക്യൂട്ട് ചെയ്യാനാകില്ല. കേസില്‍ അധ്യാപകനെതിരെ ചുമത്തിയ ജുവൈനല്‍ ജസ്റ്റീസ് നിയമപ്രകാരമുള്ള കുറ്റം നിലനില്‍ക്കുന്നതല്ല'- കോടതി വിധിന്യായത്തില്‍ പറയുന്നു. കേസില്‍ പ്രോസിക്യൂഷന്‍ നടന്നാല്‍ അത് പെണ്‍കുട്ടിയുടെ ഭാവിയെയും അധ്യാപക-വിദ്യാര്‍ത്ഥി ബന്ധത്തേയും പ്രതികൂലമായി ബാധിക്കുമെന്നും കോടതി പറഞ്ഞു.

Friday, June 30, 2017

SOME IMPORTANT CITATIONS ON CONFISCATION PROCEEDINGS AND SUPRATNAMA

Compiled by Adv Mir Nagman Ali, Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur 9028401027/8380069591

SOME IMPORTANT CITATIONS ON CONFISCATION PROCEEDINGS AND SUPRATNAMA

State Of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Madhukar Rao2008 ALL SCR 470

 

Wild Life (Protection) Act (1972), Ss.39(d), 50 (as amended in 1991) - Criminal P.C. (1973), S.451 - Release of seized vehicle - Accused borrowing vehicle on pretext of going to see his ailing father - Owner of vehicle was not in vehicle at time of checking and was not an accused in the case - Four persons occupying vehicle arrested and vehicle and contraband seized - Held, S.50 as amended did not in any way affect the Magistrate's power to make order of interim release of vehicle under S.451 of the code - Section 39(d) cannot be used against exercise of power to release vehicle during pendency of trial.

 

Nawalkishor S/O. Goverdhandasji Rathi Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Anr.2006 ALL MR (Cri) 162

 

Wild Life (Protection) Act (1972), Ss.48A, 51, 48 - Forest Act (1927), Ss.42, 41, 2(4)(iii), 61-A to 61-G - Bombay Forest (Amendment) Transit Rules (1999), Rr.66, 129 - Confiscation of truck - Truck involved in transportation of carcass of a wild pig - Prosecution against accused under S.48 of Wild Life (Protection) Act - Application for release of truck - Can be made to Magistrate - Right of petitioner the owner of vehicle to claim the vehicle does not stand foreclosed, if the petitioner is successful in convincing the Trial Court that he had no knowledge that the truck was likely to be used for carrying forest produce in contravention of the Forest Act - Magistrate to issue notice to the petitioner at the stage when he would propose to pass an order of forfeiture under S.51 of the Wild Life (Protection) Act. AIR 1998 SC 2927 - Referred to. (Paras

 

Jagjeet Singh Vs. State Of Maharashtra2013 ALL MR (Cri) 846

 

Wild Life (Protection) Act (1972), Ss.50, 51 - Seizure of truck - Truck involved in carrying cement and spotted deer - Owner of truck, not accused and offence committed without his knowledge - Alleged offence committed by driver and cleaner - Not the case by officer that spotted deer was killed either by driver or cleaner - Owner/applicant not aware of activities by driver or cleaner - Truck released on execution of bond.

 

Ravindra S/O. Bapunath Tayade Vs. State Of Maharashtra & Anr.2007 ALL MR (Cri) 3108

 

Wild Life (Protection) Act (1972), Ss.39, 50, 51 - Property of State Government - Seized vehicle - Seized vehicles would become the property of the State Government only when after the trial relevant accused are held guilty for the offences charged and vehicles are proved to have been used in commission of offence. 2000(1) M.P.L.J. 289 - Rel. on. (Para

 

Nitin S/O. Nathurao Gajbhiye & Anr. Vs. State Of Maharashtra2013 ALL MR (Cri) 912

 

Wild Life (Protection) Act (1972), Ss.39, 6(1)(2), 9 - Penal Code (1860), Ss.279, 337, 427 - Motor Vehicles Act (1988), S.184 - Criminal P.C. (1973), S.482 - Seizure of truck - Illegal transportation of meat in the truck - FIR does not disclose any offence punishable under S.39 of Wild Life Act - Police officers not aware of the provisions of Act for seizure - Truck needs to be released on execution of bond.

 

Vasant s/o. Annarao Bhosle Vs. The State of Maharashtra2016 ALL MR (Cri) 2788

 

Essential Commodities Act (1955), Ss.3, 6E - Criminal P.C. (1973), Ss.452, 456, 457 - Bar of jurisdiction - Interim custody of food articles - Provisions of special law i.e. Essential Commodities Act will apply - Even though there are provision like Ss.456, 457 Cr.P.C., that cannot be invoked by criminal court.

 

Hasankhan S/O. Sherkhan Pathan Vs. The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.2014 ALL MR (Cri) 1395

 

Criminal P.C. (1973), S.457 - Essential Commodities Act (1955), Ss.3, 7 - Interim custody of seized goods - Entitlement - Food grain i.e. wheat belonging to petitioner, seized on suspicion of offence under E.C. Act - In view of legal position that confiscation proceeding under E.C. Act debars jurisdiction of Magistrate u/s.457 Cr. P.C., interim custody of wheat denied - However, there was no evidence to indicate that confiscation had commenced under E.C. Act - District Supply Officer (DSO) had not filed any report in this respect - Held, non-filing of report by DSO should not disfavour the petitioner - When claim of petitioner that no notice of confiscation received by him, was not controverted by DSO or investigating agency, Magistrate ought to have exercised its powers u/s.457 - Petitioner entitled to interim custody. (Paras

 

Vitthal Pandurang Navle Vs. State Of Maharashtra2003 ALL MR (Cri) 1952

 

Essential Commodities Act (1955), Ss.6A, 6B and 6E - Criminal P.C. (1973), Ss.451, 457 - Release of vehicle seized for violation of provision of Act - Release of vehicle - Bar under S.6-E during pendency of confiscation proceedings - Mere information by Police to Collector about seizure of vehicle and registration of case does not amount to commencement of confiscation proceedings - Bar to release vehicle does not come into operation till then.

 

State Of Maharashtra Vs. Mohd. Safi S/O. Noor Mohd. Shaikh1999 ALL MR (Cri) 1121

 

Forest Act (1927), Ss.52(1) and 61G - Release of property seized - Timber logs seized from accused - Release - Jurisdiction is vested in specified authorities - Magistrate cannot direct for return of property on supratnama under S.457 Cri. P.C.

 

State Of Maharashtra Vs. Manishkumar S/O Babulal Biyani1998 ALL MR (Cri) 89

 

Criminal P.C. (1973), Ss.457, 451 - Essential Commodities Act (1955), Ss.6A, 6E - LPG Cylinders - Seizure by Police - Confiscation proceedings not pending before Collector or State Govt. - Disposal of cylinders - Criminal Court not barred from exercising jurisdiction under S.457 r/w 451.

 

The State Of Maharashtra Vs. Bahadursingh Gulbartsingh1999 ALL MR (Cri) 1096

 

Bombay Prohibition Act (1949), S.132 - Criminal P.C. (1973), S.457 - Property attached in prohibition raid - Prohibition Officer not producing property before Magistrate nor making report to Collector that property attached was not required in evidence but was liable to be confiscated - In fact there was no explanation whatsoever for detaining the property in his custody - Held in the circumstances magistrate was justified in ordering release of property to accused. (Para

 

State Of Maharashtra Vs. Manishkumar S/O Babulal Biyani1998 ALL MR (Cri) 89

Criminal P.C. (1973), Ss.457, 451 - Essential Commodities Act (1955), Ss.6A, 6E - LPG Cylinders - Seizure by Police - Confiscation proceedings not pending before Collector or State Govt. - Disposal of cylinders - Criminal Court not barred from exercising jurisdiction under S.457 r/w 451.

 

State Of U.P. & Anr.Vs. Lalloo Singh2007 ALL MR (Cri) 2076 (S.C.)

 

Wild Life (Protection) Act (1972), S.50(1) - Criminal P.C. (1973), S.457 - Offence under the Act - Seizure and disposal of property - S.457 of Cr.P.C. has no application - There is marked distinction between police officers and officials under the Act. (Paras

 

Wild Life (Protection) Act (1972), Ss.50(1), (4), 39(1)(d) - Seized property - Application for temporary release of custody - Seized property becomes property of the State Government when it is used for commission of offence under the Act and is seized - On appropriate case on consideration of material placed before Magistrate by authorised officer to whom intimation under sub-section (4) is given about seizure, prayer for release or custody may be rejected. (Para

SOME IMPORTANT CITATIONS ON SUPRATNAMA/RETURN OF ARTICLES

Compiled by Adv Mir Nagman Ali,

Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur

9028401027

SOME IMPORTANT CITATIONS ON SUPRATNAMA/RETURN OF ARTICLES

Manoj Vs. Shriram Tpt. Finance Company Limited, 2002 1 JT 293.

 

in a situation where a financier is aggrieved by the order directing release of vehicle to the registered owner, it would be open for him to approach the Civil Court, but it would not be permissible for him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to give effect to his alleged civil rights.

 

Rajendra Prasad vs. State of Bihar [ (2001) 10 S. C. C. 881

 

the Hon'ble supreme Court, at the stage of Section 451 of the Code, did not decide the question of title nor the correctness of the rival versions regarding the transaction relating to the vehicle but felt that the vehicle ought not to remain in the compound of the Police Station and exposed to heat and cold because the vehicle was likely to be lost to all in such situation and proceeded to entrust the custody of the said vehicle temporarily to the appellant who was the ostensible name-holder in the registration certificate, on behalf of the court, till the conclusion of the trial when the trial Court was required to pass an order regarding the disposal of the property.

 

Gijji Vs. A. K. Gopinathan (1996 Cri. LJ. 140) ;

M/s. B. C. L. Financial services Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors. (1999 Cri. L. J. 2305 : [1999 ALL MR (Cri) 597])

 Neeraj Kumar Agarwal Vs. State of U. P. (1992 Cri. L. J. 1247).

 

In this last mentioned case, a single Judge of Allahabad high Court has said that normally a vehicle shall be released in favour of the registered owner and that a person alleging transfer of a vehicle in his name is not entitled to release order in his favour merely on that basis in the absence of the registration and the plea of transfer if true, transferee has remedy in Civil Court for compensation

 

Vishnu Bhagwat VS State of Mah 2014 (2) BCR(Cri) 192, 2014 LawSuit(Bom) 179

Where a financier is aggrieved by the order directing release of vehicle to the registered owner, it would be open for him to approach the Civil Court, but it would not be permissible for him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to give effect to his alleged civil rights.

RABINDRA KUMAR PATI  VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.

2006 STPL(LE-Crim) 27972 [2007 CRI. L. J. 819] ORISSA HIGH COURT

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ─ Section 457 ─ Seizure of vehicle by police ─ Interim custody of ─ O.P. No. 2purchase a tractor and trolley on hire-purchase agreement from O.P. No. 1/Bank ─ Default in re-payment of loan amount ─ Bank took away the vehicle and conducted auction sale ─ Being highest, offer of petitioner/purchaser was accepted ─ Claim and counter claim by loanee andpurchaser ─ Purchaser had purchase the vehicle by paying value thereof and spent huge amounts toward Road Tax etc., repair and purchase of accessories of said vehicle ─ He is entitled to interim custody of vehicle ─ Order of court below directingpurchaser to furnish security of Rs. One Lac modified to the extent that he shall furnish a bank guarantee for like amount.

 Pralhad Thombre VS Mah 2012 (4) B Cr C 12

A.  Criminal Procedure Code 1973, Sections 451 and 457--Release of vehicle seized during investigation--Petitioner/owner seeking release of Tavera Jeep, seized by police in investigation of alleged murder--Courts below refusing custody by observing that said vehicle was used for murder since cushion of the jeep was cut in some places which is important piece of evidence would be destroyed if vehicle is released--Petitioner admittedly is not accused in the said crime  and doing business of renting out vehicles--Jeep ordered to be returned on execution of Supartnama to avoid deterioration rusting and decay, and to enable him to utilize the same to earn his livelihood by imposing conditions of not altering the interior of vehicle in any way whatsoever and produce the vehicle before court when required. 

Pirappa Birajdar VS M/s  Arti Co. 2004 All MR CRI 2006 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 397, 451, 457--Revision--Maintainability of--Custody of petitioners Truck forcibly taken by respondents/financer--Complaint against financer under Section 379 of Penal Code--Magistrate ordering release of Truck to petitioner Sessions Court in revision set aside the order passed by Magistrate--Held, order passed under Section 451 being interlocutory order, revision is not maintainable--Further held, when an order does not decide the rights of the parties in any manner, it would become interlocutory order.

 Manoj Sharma Vs Shriram Finance  2003 AllMR(Cri) 1757, 

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Section 451 -- Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 -- Release of vehicle to registered owner -- Pending Civil Suit -- Grievance of financier -- If the financier was aggrieved by the order directing release of vehicle to registered owner, it was open for the financier to approach the Civil Court in the pending civil suit for interference -- Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and Order of magistrate restored.

 Jagjeet Singh VS Mah 2013 ALL MR CRI 486

Criminal Procedure Code,1973,Sections 451 and 457--Wild Life (Protection) Act,1972, Section 50--Return of truck seized under Act,1972--Truck driven by driver found to be loaded with 320 bags of cement and a carcass of spotted-deer--Applicant owner of vehicle not aware of offence if any committed by his driver or cleaner when they were sent on their way to Nagpur from Andhra Pradesh--Order rejecting return of truck  on the ground that property seized by competent officer under Act,1972 has becomes Government property is erroneous--Truck directed to be released in favour of applicant on execution of bond.

 Hasan Khan Vs Mah 2014 (1) BCR Cri 286 

Essential Commodities Act, 1955, Sections 3 and 7--Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 457--Interim custody of seized wheat--Magistrate as also Sessions Court refusing  to hand over interim custody of seized wheat to petitioner by observing  that District Supply Officer had not filed his report and had not passed orders as regards confiscation of seized goods--Petitioner already claiming that he had not received any notice is respect of confiscation proceedings--Failure of Supply Officer or  investigating agency to say that confiscation proceedings had commenced could not have been viewed in their favour and adversely to petitioner-- Admittedly after completion of investigation charge sheet has  already been filed--Holding impugned orders passed by below courts as perverse ,quashed and set aside--Interim custody directed to be handed over to petitioner on executing bond of Rs.1,40,000/- 

Gulam Hussain VS Mah 2010 (4) B Cr C 44

Criminal Procedure Code,1973,Setion 457--Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act,1960,Section 11(d)(e)(f)--Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act,1976,Section 5(1)--Interim custody of animals--Purchaser having valid licence to sell and purchase animals since is a rightful owner of the animals, such purchaser of animal would have preferential right of interim custody subject to condition of not subjecting animals for slaughtering.

 (See 2014 (6) LJSOFT (AUR) 109) 

Return of vehicles — Claim by financier — Open for him to approach the Civil Court but it would not be permissible for him to invoke the jurisdiction of the Criminal Court to give effect to his alleged civil rights 

Bhagwan Shiram Ahir vs Maharashtra  27 April 2012 Aurangabad Bench

 

Even if the gold ornaments have been converted into gold ingot. If the prosecution is not disputing the ownership of ornaments then gold ornaments entitled to be handed over to applicant.

 BHARATH METHA VERSUS STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHENNAI

[AIR 2008 SC 1970 = (2008) 5 SCC 752 = 2008 AIR(SCW) 2289 = 2008 CRI. L. J. 2245 = 2008 (5) SCR 478 = (2008) 4 Scale 186 = (2008) 3 SCC(Cri) 72]SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Sections 451 and 457 - Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, Sections 4(1)(A) and 4(1)(aaa) - Rectified Spirit Rules, Rules, 5 and 6 - Release of vehicle - Sought by financier -In the Registration Certificate the name of financier has been indicated and factum that vehicle was subject to such an agreement noted - In the agreement appellant-financier is described as owner - Respondent No. 2 as hirer - Application filed by Respondent No. 2 for release of vehicle accepted by High Court on certain conditions which were not fulfilled - Vehicle is lying with the seizing authorities for nearly eight years - Court directed release of vehicle in favour of appellant subject to conditions stipulated for respondent No. 2.

 

STATE OF M.P. & ORS. VS  MADHUKAR RAO

[(2008) 14 SCC 624 = JT 2008 (1) SC 364 = 2008 AIR(SCW) 787 = (2009) 2 SCC(Cri) 1140] SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 (A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, Section 451 - Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 50(1)(c) - Criminal Procedure - Power of Magistrate - Sapurdnama - Interim release of vehicle - During pendency of trial in exercise of powers under Section 451 of Cr.P.C. - Provision of section 50 of the Act and the amendments made thereunder do not in any ways effect the Magistrate's power.

(Paras 17 and 18) 

(B) Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972, Section 39(1)(d) - Wild life protection -Provision of Section 39(1)(d) would come into play only after a court of competent jurisdiction found that accusation and the allegations made against the accused was true and recorded the finding that the seized articles was, as a matter of fact, used in the commission of offence - Any attempt to operationlise section 39(1)(d) merely on the basis of seizure and accusations/allegations levelled by the departmental authorities would bring it into conflict with the constitutional provision and would render it unconstitutional and invalid.

 

SUNDERBHAI AMBALAL DESAI VERSUSSTATE OF GUJARAT

AIR 2003 SC 638 = (2002) 10 SCC 283 = JT 2002 (10) SC 80 = 2002 AIR(SCW) 5301 = (2002) 8 Supreme 525 = 2002 (Supp4) SCR 217 = (2002) 8 Scale 516]SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 451 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 429, 420, 465, 468, 477(a), 114 - Property in custody disposed during pending cases - Various articles kept at police station for long period were alleged - Misappropriation of cash - Replacement of muddamal articles with spurious ones - For evolving suitable procedure to prevent misappropriation and replacement, court directions were sought - Held, for disposal of muddamal articles, some broad guidelines and procedures to be followed - Directing magistrates to ensure powers under s. 451 are property and promptly exercised - Articles kept in the police stations not more than fifteen days to one month in any case - Rules framed by high court to be supervise by high court registry and its property implementation - Adjourned for three weeks. 

RAMESH CHAND JAIN VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

2010 STPL(LE) 43746 SC [(2007) 15 SCC 126 = (2010) 3 SCC(Cri) 527]

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -  Section 451- Criminal Procedure - Disposal of Property - Truck seized for non-production of papers - Conditional order of release of truck on super Dari - Affirmed by High Court - Appeal - Contended that respondent 2 merely one of guarantors for repayment of loan taken by appellant from bank for purchase of truck, not entitled for interim custody of seized vehicle  - Held that  inter se civil liabilities of appellant/registered owner of the truck, financier and guarantors not subject-matter relevant for granting interim custody of seized vehicle -  Hence, impugned order set aside - Direction for furnishing security in sum of Rs4 lakhs to satisfaction of trial Magistrate - Appeal allowed.

 KIRTA RAM VERSUS STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2008 STPL(LE-Crim) 29171 RAJ  RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973-Sections 457, 482-Order rejecting application for interim custody of vehicle-Quashing of-Present petition for-Seizure of vehicle during the course of transportation of poppy straw-Petitioner is registered owner of vehicle-Occupant of said vehicle claimed himself to be the owner of said vehicle on strength of agreement for sale executed by petitioner in his favour-Evidence showing that petitioner shifted the stand in claiming ownership of vehicle on strength of registration certificate which stands in his favour while denying ownership of vehicle during investigation-More so, it was “D” who was in possession of vehicle at the relevant time of offence on strength of agreement for sale and he has not sought the custody of vehicle-Therefor, petitioner is not entitled to interim custody of vehicle in question.

 RABINDRA KUMAR PATI VERSUS STATE OF ORISSA & ANR.

2006 STPL(LE-Crim) 27972 ORISSA HIGH COURT

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 ─ Section 457 ─ Seizure of vehicle by police ─ Interim custody of ─ O.P. No. 2 purchase a tractor and trolley on hire-purchase agreement from O.P. No. 1/Bank ─ Default in re-payment of loan amount ─ Bank took away the vehicle and conducted auction sale ─ Being highest, offer of petitioner/purchaser was accepted ─ Claim and counter claim by loanee and purchaser ─ Purchaser had purchase the vehicle by paying value thereof and spent huge amounts toward Road Tax etc., repair and purchase of accessories of said vehicle ─ He is entitled to interim custody of vehicle ─ Order of court below directing purchaser to furnish security of Rs. One Lac modified to the extent that he shall furnish a bank guarantee for like amount.

  ASHOK LEYLAND FINANCE LTDVERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

2011 STPL(LE-Crim) 34645 ALL (ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT)  2011 CrLJ 2011

 Criminal Procedure Code; 1973 - Section 451 - Release of vehicle - Case registered under Sections 394/411 I.P.C. - Vehicle was recovered by police during investigation - Ownership is not absolute - Registration certificate was subject to Hire Purchase Agreement showing that ownership of said vehicle was subject to the terms and conditions agreed into between the hirer and owner - Revisionist being owner of vehicle, entitled to its custody - Order impugned releasing the property/vehicle in the name of O.P. No. 2/hirer - Not sustainable - Impugned order liable to be quashed and set aside - Lower Court directed to take possession of vehicle and release it to the custody of revisionist. 

MANOJVERSUS SHRIRAM TPT. FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED

2002 STPL(LE) 30870 SC [JT 2002 (1) SC 293 = (2002) 2 Supreme 107] SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 451 - Mr. Rao appearing for the financier vehemently contended that in view of the pendency of the civil suits, and the order of the status quo passed therein, the magistrate was not justified in passing the order granting the vehicle in possession of Shri manoj Sharma