A condition for a local LPG dealership was that the applicant should be an “original resident” of Kangra. A married lady who lived in Mandi applied for dealership, as her husband owned properties at Kangra. The high court held her eligible. The Supreme Court disagreed and stated that the intention for stipulating such a condition was to provide employment for residents of Kangra, and therefore a person having a connection with the place and not residing there cannot be eligible. The case was remanded to the high court (Bhagwan Dass vs Kamal Abrol).
A person surreptitiously sold his house rendering his family homeless. His family members contended that the sale deed was void and he was of unsound mind. He was medically certified as ‘normal’. The Supreme Court held that a person of unsound mind is not necessarily a lunatic. His mental soundness need not be established by medical evidence, but by proving that his conduct was due to mental disorder. In the absence of compelling circumstances such as financial need, etc., the act of a man selling his family home must be seen as an outcome of an unsound mind (Sona Bala Bora vs Jyotirindra Bhattacharjee).
A child’s paternity was proved by a DNA test conducted at the Finger Printing and Diagnostic Centre. However, a DNA expert is not included in the list of scientific experts in the Criminal Procedure Code whose evidence may be used by the court without examination by experts. The other party contended that the evidence, therefore, was not permissible. The mother did not have the money to conduct such an examination. The Kerala High Court held the evidence admissible, as the test had been conducted by a central government undertaking. The court also called upon the government to include DNA experts in the said list (Geetha vs State of Kerala).
SOLON
