J&K | Appeal pending for 5 years with no chance being heard in near future is a ground for enlargement on bail
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: The Bench of Gita Mittal, CJ and Tashi Rabstan, J. allowed the application filed for seeking suspension
Appeal
Ori HC | Application for additional evidence can be considered at the time of hearing of appeal
Orissa High Court: The Bench of Dr A.K. Rath, J. allowed the application filed for challenging the order of the District Court
SL CA | No appeal preferred against an action wrongly decided renders the matter with same cause of action as res judicata
Sri Lanka Court of Appeal: This appeal was filed before a 2-Judge Bench comprising of A.H.M.D. Nawaz and E.A.G.R. Amarasekara, JJ. Facts
Appeal filed along with application for condonation of delay when dismissed is a decree within Section 2(2) CPC
Orissa High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Dr A.K. Rath, J., dismissed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the
Appeal against an order allowed as the party obtaining the order gave up interest therein
Madras High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of N. Seshasayee, J., allowed an appeal on the ground that the respondent gave
Recovery Proceedings| Primary forum (DRT) being in Ernakulam, Kerala HC has supervisory jurisdiction over DRAT, Chennai
Kerala High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. while hearing an original petition in a debt recovery
Appeal for setting aside an arbitration award: Not maintainable in the absence of cogent materials to show the default of the other party
Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of V. Chitambaresh, Satish Ninan, JJ., dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the lower
Incumbent upon Division Bench to record findings on all issues carried in intra-court appeal: SC
Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of A.M. Sapre and Indu Malhotra, JJ. allowed an appeal filed against the judgment of a Division Bench
Order closing right to lead evidence not “judgment”; no right to appeal thereagainst under Section 10 (1) Delhi HC Act, 1966: Delhi HC
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Rajendra Menon, CJ. and V. Kameshwar Rao, J. dismissed an appeal against the order of
No provision for exempting time lost due to ‘carelessness of counsel’ while computing limitation: Sikkim HC
Sikkim High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.,decided an application for condonation of delay filed under Order
Period of delay is not the criteria while considering application under Section 5 of Limitation Act
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of G.S. Sistani and Sangita Dhingra Sehgal, JJ., refused to condone a delay of 65
Section 17 of SARFAESI Act provides remedy before DRT against the order of District Magistrate
Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a matter arising under Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Securities Interest (SARFAESI) Act,
No interference is warranted in an intra-court mandamus appeal unless there is palpable infirmity in the impugned judgment
Calcutta High Court: Biswanath Somadder, J. speaking for the Court comprising of himself and Arindam Mukherjee, J. dismissed an appeal challenging the
Mere filing of an appeal does not stay a decree passed by the lower court
Manipur High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ramalingam Sudhakar, CJ, dismissed a contempt petition filed against the Sub-Deputy Collector, Sawombung
An order of acquittal does not entail interference unless gross perversity is shown
Karnataka High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Ravi Malimath, J., decided a criminal appeal filed by the State under Section
NCDRC: Complaint liable to be dismissed, if filed beyond the period of limitation
National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission: The Commission held that if a complaint is filed beyond a period of two years from when
NCLAT rejects appeal due to lack of evidence
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal: In the judgment delivered by S.J. Mukhopadhaya (Chairperson), AIS Cheema (Judicial Member) and Balvinder Singh (Technical Member)
Any inconvenience caused to a person for certain individual eventuality cannot be a reason to declare a provision illegal
Rajasthan High Court: A writ petition was filed to examine constitutional validity of Rule 63(4) of the Rajasthan Minor Mineral Concession Rules,
An appeal is a statutory remedy available to an ‘aggrieved person’ as a matter of right, it cannot be curtailed by narrow interpretation
Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying to
Coal Scam: Only Supreme Court can hear pleas challenging the orders of Special Courts
Supreme Court: Rejecting the plea of Naveen Jindal seeking permission to challenge the Trail Court’s order in Coal Scam, the 3-judge bench headed