nMahendra Sari Emporium, a sole proprietory concern took on rent in a non-residential premise and subsequently converted its business into a partnership firm. The landlord initiated eviction proceedings contending that the old firm and the new firm being two legal entities, occupation by the new firm amounted to sub-letting. Rejecting the contention the Supreme Court re-iterated that so long as the legal possession remains with the tenant, mere factum of entering into partnership for purposes of business do not amount to sub-letting. Proceedings for eviction were dismissed (Mahendra Sari Emporium vs G.V. Srinivas Murthy).

A college student was kidnapped in a jeep. The offenders asked for his phone number stating that they would ask for ransom. However, he managed to flee. The offenders were arrested and charged under Section 364-A of the Indian Penal Code (kidnapping for ransom). The accused contended that they did not demand for ransom. The Supreme Court held that the victim was detained and was clearly told about the ransom. It cannot be said there was no demand merely because the amount could not be conveyed to the other person as the accused was arrested in the meantime (Malleshi vs State of Karnataka).

An upper division clerk in the Kerala police force was removed from service upon being convicted of an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Upon a criminal revision petition being filed before the High Court the offence was compounded. Praying for re-instatement, the petitioner contended that in terms of Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, compounding an offence amounts to acquittal. Directing reinstatement, the Kerala High Court held that when an employee is removed solely on the basis of a criminal case, he ought to be reinstated once he is acquitted. The Kerala Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules itself provides for reinstatement in such cases (Sailesh vs State of Kerala).

SOLON