The municipal corporation of Amritsar levied service charges in respect of buildings owned on the post and telegraph department for providing services like water supply, street lighting, drainage, etc. The department challenged this saying that properties belonging to the Union of India are exempt from such tax. The Supreme Court held that such charges cannot be levied in absence of provisions to that effect. It can be made by way of tax. The corporation was collecting tax from the public for services like water supply, street lighting, drainage, etc. Therefore tax was sought to be imposed on the department in the garb of service charges. The corporation cannot impose tax on the property of the Union of India (Municipal Corporation Amritsar vs The Senior Supdtt of Post Offices, Amritsar Division and Anr).

A husband, arrested under section 498A, was granted bail on the grounds that there were chances of compromise. Thereafter, the wife applied for cancellation of bail stating that he was not cooperating in the compromise. Ultimately the husband preferred an appeal before the Supreme Court contending that what was submitted to the court was that negotiations were on. As no such compromise was arrived at, the question of violating its terms does not arise. The apex court held that Criminal Procedure Code does not contemplate either granting of bail on the basis of assurance of a compromise or its cancellation for violation of the terms of a compromise. Having granted the bail, it is not open to the courts to cancel the same on a ground alien to the grounds provided in law for cancellation of bail (Biman Chatterjee vs Sanchita Bannerjee).

A daughter filed a case for grant of succession certificate on the death of her father. The brother of the deceased objected alleging that she was not his daughter but that of another brother (Ram Saran Das) of the deceased and applied to the court for subjecting the daughter and Das to a DNA test. The application was allowed. On appeal by the daughter, the Delhi High Court held that a DNA test is not permissible merely on the allegations of the objector, and the same infringes his or her right to privacy enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution. The court should have decided the matter on the basis of evidence that could be produced by the respective parties (Teeku Dutta vs State).

SOLON