Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
‘The contention that the appeal is not maintainable under Section 100 of CPC cannot be accepted, rather the appeal filed by appellant is maintainable before the Court as the order of Additional District Judge is a decree.
The Court reiterated that the court cannot open its own order on merits specifically in the light of the bar as contained under Section 362 of CrPC.
In the instant appeal, the Court had to consider the interplay of Sections 9 and 37 of the A&C Act; Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Rule 9 of High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings before the Courts) Rules, 2001.
Rajasthan High Court held that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC do not extend to interfering with orders of the District Collector acting under Section 6-A of the RBA Act in a quasi-judicial capacity.
The appellant filed an objection before the Executing Court to delete their name from the execution proceeding and to insert the name of Executive Engineer PWD, NH Division as Judgment debtor but the Executing Court disposed of objection on the ground that matter was already decided.
Orissa High Court held that the court’s intervention is limited and emphasised on the autonomy of the arbitral process and the finality of the arbitral award.
“The reassessment notice was issued by ITO, Ward 69(1), New Delhi, under Section 148 and lacked jurisdiction as the jurisdiction was with ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon. Hence, the subsequent assessment completed by ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon, based on this notice was legally flawed.”
“The Statehas miserably failed to show any patent illegality warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. Mere allegation would not suffice until and unless it stands substantiated from the pleading and the records.”
There are substantive differences between review and appeal. A decision’s cryptic nature alone does not warrant a review.
The impugned Order clearly holds that the petitioner is deemed to have abandoned the application and that it has failed to comply with the requirements of Section 21(1) of the Patents Act, 1970.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on quantum of costs.
“When the genuineness of a Will is called into question, the conscience of the Court has to be satisfied that the Will is not only executed and attested in the manner required, but also that the same was the product of free volition of the executant.”
While the court did not provide a definitive ruling at this stage, it demonstrated a proactive approach by directing the Grievance Appellate Committee to promptly decide the petitioners’ appeal, should they file one. This interim measure aimed to mitigate the petitioners’ grievances pending a final determination of the constitutional validity of Rule 3(1)(c) of IT Rules, 2021 and related provisions.
The High Court stated that the convict had taken innocent lives in an extremely barbaric, criminal, and heartless manner. His acts have shocked not only the judicial conscience but also the conscience of society.
The Court directed US to assure that Assange is allowed to rely on the First Amendment protections and is not prejudiced at trial by reason of his nationality, and that a death penalty is not imposed.
Rajasthan High Court decided to entertain the appeal due to the significant question of the application’s maintainability.
The instant matter is related to appeal against the writ petition challenging the election of respondent 14 to the West Bengal Assembly in the 2021 elections, based on falsifying his educational qualifications.
“When damages have been paid for unlawful use of land then plaintiff, being a wrong doer, cannot claim equitable relief for wrongful use of such land, in respect of which he has no right, title, interest.”
“If the Appellate Tribunal under Bihar Goods and Services Tax, 2017 is constituted and an appeal is filed there can be no further proceedings taken for recovery of the balance amounts till the appeal is disposed of.”
“An amending statute cannot be read in a manner to take away, alter, abrogate, impair or extinguish vested rights acquired under existing laws, or create a new obligation, impose a new duty or attach a new disability, in respect of transactions already past”