Better half

A notice was sent under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act after a cheque bounced. As the notice was received by the accused’s wife, it was contended that since the wife was not authorised to receive any registered article, the notice was not “sufficient notice”. The magistrate accepted the contention. The Kerala High Court held that the postal acknowledgement card showed the address where the accused was residing and where his wife admittedly received the notice. Since the accused had knowledge of the same, it was unnecessary to probe if she was indeed authorised to receive the notice. The accused was convicted (Sheela vs Gopalakrishnan).

Owner’s need

In a case relating to eviction, the Kerala High Court held that while a power-of-attorney holder can defend the landlord’s case when it comes to arbitration of all actions, suits, claims, etc, to which a landlord is a party, he cannot act as a witness on behalf of the landlord. When a landlord requires a building for bona fide use, he is the only person who can speak about his need. Bona fide in this case is a state of mind that can only be manifested by the landlord (Ratheesh Kumar vs Jithendra Kumar).

Hit and pay

An RTC bus hit a lorry and a person travelling in the lorry died. The claimants asked for compensation. The tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs 50,000. In a counter appeal, a plea was raised before the high court that as the bus driver, the owner and the driver of the lorry were not made parties, the claimant’s application was defective. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that RTC could not escape liability. The compensation was awarded on the basis of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act which says that whether or not there is a defect in the application, the owner is liable to pay compensation (APSRTC vs Musnam Zalitha).

SOLON