Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Bombay High Court held that creation of the Kolhapur Circuit Bench does not divest the Principal Seat of jurisdiction, as both the DRT (Pune) and DRAT (Mumbai) fall within its territory and the appellate order forms a substantial part of the cause of action.
“Mere filing of an appeal cannot and does not operate as a stay of the order appealed against, unless an order of stay operation of the same has been passed.”
“We find the conduct of HMDA not only to be in blatant disregard of the law but also evincing desperation to avoid the processes of law by pushing back their obligation to make payment to CEL by filing one vexatious proceeding after another.”
“Once the panchnama was found to be of doubtful evidentiary worth, the correct course would have been to proceed with adjudication on available legal grounds, and not to relegate the parties to a fresh round of proceedings without justification.”
“Where the plaintiff attempts to under-value the plaint and reliefs, the Court has to intervene.”
Once it is found that the original order is passed by the Competent Authority without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the same is liable to be set aside as having been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.
“Consideration to condone can be made only if there is a reasonable explanation and the condonation cannot be merely because the appellant is a Government body where procedural and bureaucratic delays are well known.”
When the Court requested the advocate to remove her face cover, she asserted that a woman advocate can appear with her face covered and claimed the same as her fundamental right.
“Where the additional evidence sought to be adduced removes the cloud of doubt over the case, the evidence has a direct & important bearing on the main issue in the suit and interest of justice clearly renders it imperative that the evidence must be permitted to be taken on record, then such an application may be allowed.”
Allahabad High Court reiterated that Arbitration Act transcends all territorial barriers.
The petitioner presented a screenshot of WhatsApp conversations to show that the full complaint and annexures were not received until 31-01-2023, despite the summons being served on 23-12-2022.
“A perusal of the impugned order shows that the arbitrator has yet not fully closed the issue and has decided to adjudicate on the issue after evidence is led on the same issue.”
The orders passed by the tribunals and the judicial acts by administrative bodies or authorities or persons exercising quasi-judicial functions are all amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Calcutta High Court reasoned that the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 is not appellate in nature and cannot be exercised to correct mere errors of fact.
The Calcutta High Court noted that the amendment did not change the suit’s nature fundamentally and would not cause undue prejudice to the petitioner.
Sexual violence against a woman should invite no tolerance, however, manipulating the system by the parties to a case under Section 376 IPC would equally need to be dealt with a stern hand and serious efforts should be made to address and remedy failings within the criminal justice system and through our society.
The Calcutta High Court stated that the terms of the e-auction notice explicitly stated the conditions of the sale, including the forfeiture clause in case of non-compliance by the bidder.
“By the Civil Procedure Code (amendment Act, 1999) the scope of Section 115 of the code has been curtailed but that does not mean that due to such curtailment, the High court’s power of superintendence under Article 227 has been expanded.”
Himachal Pradesh High Court: In the case where it was argued before the Court that the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan, SA Nazeer and Hemant Gupta*, JJ has reiterated that the nomenclature under which the