Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The amendments were imperative for the proper and effective adjudication of the dispute; refusal to allow the amendment application would have caused injustice or resulted in multiple litigations; and the amendments did not constitutionally or fundamentally change the nature of the case.
The Court noted that the respondent merely seeks to summon the record, which was not in his possession but was in the possession of the petitioner, which right cannot be denied to him.
Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, empowers Courts to extend mandate of arbitral tribunals beyond the specified limitation.
The Court stated that if the amendment was not allowed it would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation, as the amendments appeared to be necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties.
“In matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be considered than inconvenience of the husband. There are grounds to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer the petition.”
Relying on UN Krishnamurthy v. AM Krishnamurthy, the Court stated that the appellant failed to indicate willingness to perform their part of the transaction, as they neither showed nor proved the availability of sufficient funds required to make the payments per the contract
“In the light of law laid down by the Courts, change of counsel cannot be a ground to file amendment application bypassing the rigorous conditions of due diligence. In fact, to meet out any mistake, no advantage can be given to litigant due to change of counsel.”
“The nature of infringement of his legal rights, if any, which were claimed by the deceased/plaintiff, were personal to him and certainly not heritable”
“Insofar as Rule 6-D of Order VIII C.P.C., it clearly provides for “Effect of discontinuance of suit” that if in any case in which the defendant sets up a counterclaim, the suit of the plaintiff is stayed, discontinued or dismissed, the counter-claim may nevertheless be proceeded with.”
The Delhi High Court says that being a government employee, the appellant cannot be permitted to be free by merely contending that the accounts, though in his name, were being managed by the co-accused.
by Justice (Retd.) Hemant Gupta*
“District Registrar is duty bound to draw a distinction between the summary proceeding and the trial nature proceedings with reference to the Registration Act and the Code of Civil Procedure”
Delhi High Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was warranted, emphasizing the need to focus solely on the allegations in the plaint at the preliminary stage because the issues regarding limitation and adverse possession required further evidence and examination, which could not be resolved without a full trial.
“No tribunal, far less a civil court, in exercise of judicial power ought to play ducks and drakes with the rights of the parties.”
“Where the plaint is returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, on its presentation before the appropriate Court of jurisdiction, the suit will be treated as a fresh suit, and will have to start de novo, and all proceedings before the earlier Court will be rendered a nullity.”
It is no defence to state that others have also infringing the marks/labels of the Plaintiff as the Defendant cannot seek shelter behind other infringers or potential infringers.
“The suit was instituted in 1996 and was at the fag end of the trial. The Defendant’s cross-examination was ongoing and if the proposed amendment is allowed, it will change the nature and character of the suit.”
Whilst the court is not unduly bound by the texts or Order XXXVIII Rule 1 and 2 or Order XXXVIII Rule (5) or any other provisions of CPC, the substantial principles for grant of such interim measures cannot be disregarded.
“The approach adopted by the High Court is incorrect and contrary to the well-entrenched principles of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.”
At this juncture, examining whether the petition filed before the NCLT can be said to be a ‘dressed-up’ petition, would necessarily require a detailed exercise to be carried out by this Court to render findings either way clearly impinging upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCLT in deciding such a question.