What Comes First After the Award: The Relief or the Stay? A case comment on Sepco Electric Power Construction Corpn. v. Power Mech Projects Ltd.
by Prerona Banerjee† and Vishal Sinha††
CPC
Explained| Supreme Court judgment on application of principle of Res Judicata and other CPC provisions
The Supreme Court said that before examining the defendants’ ground of res judicata to oppose the eviction petition, several aspects may have to be looked into, like whether such an issue was substantively at issue in the previous suit and similar such other questions may crop up.
Non-impleading of all legal representatives won’t abate the suit if the estate of the deceased is substantially represented by other defendants
Placing its reliance on Bhurey Khan v Yaseen Khan 1995 Supp (3) SCC 331, the Bench stated that the suit will not abate for the reason of non-substitution of all legal representatives of the deceased if the suit was substantially represented.
Can orders be reviewed for relying on a judgment subsequently overruled by a superior Court? Supreme Court division bench delivers split verdict
The case pertains to the resurrection of controversy surrounding the Pune Municipal Corporation and Indore Development Authority judgements of the Supreme Court vis-à-vis Section 24 of the Land Acquisition Act, 2013.
Review application cannot be used as an Appeal in disguise, reiterates Supreme Court
“An erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before the higher forum but cannot be a subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC”, stated the Supreme Court
Supreme Court emphasises on Appellate Courts’ limited scope in remanding back the matter for a de novo trial
The remand in the present case could only be correlated with Rule 23-A of Order XLI CPC and for its applicability, the necessary requirements were that “the decree is reversed in appeal and a re-trial is considered necessary”, thus, the Supreme Court held that the remand in the present case was not justified.
‘Amount deposited with the Registry should be deposited with banks to avoid loss’; Supreme Court asks Courts/Judicial Forums to frame guidelines
In a builder-home buyers’ dispute, the Supreme Court agreed with the builder ‘s argument that the rule embodied in Order XXI, Rule 4 of CPC, was applicable and the builder could not be fastened with any legal liability to pay interest after April 2005. The bench further opined that all courts and judicial forums should frame guidelines in cases where amounts deposited with the office or registry of the court or tribunal, should mandatorily be deposited in a bank or some financial institution, to ensure that no loss is caused in the future.
A Requiem for Costs
by Mikhail Behl†
Mediation Despite Urgent Interim Relief Sought in Intellectual Property Law Cases
by Rudrajyoti Nath Ray†
Whether a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under MV Act, 1988 is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of S. 115 of CPC? Allahabad High Court answers
The view of the Full Bench in Kamla Yadav case, that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Act is a Court subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of Section 115 of the Code, does not require reconsideration.
Allahabad High Court holds revision order defective for admitting without condoning the delay
The Court, not doubting the bona fides of the District Judge, maintained the legal position of Section 5 stating that revision order was a defective one without condoning the delay. There may be instances where the interest of justice may demand Court’s interference to avoid frustration of proceedings due to technicalities, however, in the present instance nothing restrained the District Judge from deciding Section 5 application.
Madras High Court |Jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot be exercised as a measure of self-imposed restriction by-passing statutory remedies under D.V. Act
Madras High Court: The full bench of P.N. Prakash, Teekaa Raman and A.D Jagadish Chandira, JJ. held that the jurisdiction
Madras High Court restrains several cable and internet service providers from broadcasting FIFA World Cup, 2022; Grants interim injunction in favour of Viacom 18
Madras High Court: In an application filed by Viacom 18 praying for restraining several cable and internet service providers involved
Delhi High Court grants ex-parte ad-interim injunction to American Eagle against Ektarfa Garments in a trademark and copyright infringement suit
Delhi High Court: In a case where application was filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section
2022 SCC Vol. 9 Part 2
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 31(7) and Ss. 17, 21, 23(3), 24(1), 25, 26, 29 and 85(2)(a) —
Limitation can be a preliminary issue under Or. 14, R. 2(2)(b) CPC if the question can be decided on admitted facts: Supreme Court
Supreme Court: Principal question before the Division Bench of Ajay Rastogi and C.T. Ravikumar*, JJ., for contemplation was whether the
Court’s power under Section 9 A&C Act, 1996 wider than CPC; Technicalities of CPC cannot prevent it from securing the ends of justice: SC
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of Indira Banerjee* and A.S. Bopanna, JJ., contemplated the scope of Section 9 of Arbitration
Explained| Order 6 Rule 17 CPC: Doctrine of dominus litus for amendment of plaint
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of M.R. Shah* and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ., explained the legal propositions governing Order 6 Rule