Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
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.
The Law Commission recommended an amendment of Section 75 CPC and insertion of new Rule 10A, 10B and 10C in Order 26 to meet its objective that there should be a special provision empowering the court to issue commissions for conducting scientific inquiries, when such an inquiry is needed for determination of any issue before the court as observed in its Fifty-Fourth Law Commission Report.
“This is a case that clamours for the exercise of judicial conscience to address the conundrum of whether an individual’s right to recover arrears in maintenance subsists even after the expiry of the period stipulated in section 125(3) CrPC.”
“Scrupulous adherence to Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 can curtail litigation like the present one, which aside from clogging the litigation also keeps the parties embroiled in litigation with a false hope of some relief.”
“The Court cannot create a deeming fiction on its own, where the statute does not do so. In the absence of any provision which deems a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act to be a suit, a Court cannot, even in the interests of expediency, so hold.”
“In certain situations, it may be expedient to leave it to the arbitrator to determine the issue as to whether stamping is insufficient, and if so, the arbitrator will take recourse to Section 33 of the Stamp Act, 1889.”
The phraseology “right to sue survive” used under Order 22 Rule 1 means right to seek relief. The general rule is that cause of action whatsoever existing in favour or against a person at the time of his death survives to or against his legal representatives.
In the case at hand, the Security was a ‘shop’, which was not owned by the surety, but by the Municipal Corporation, Lucknow.
The Court said that allegations of fraud require special pleadings in terms of Order VI, Rule 4 CPC, 1908.
In a suit instituted by the Hindu worshippers to secure their right to darshan and pooja of deities Virajman within the premises of the Gyanvapi Mosque Complex, the Allahabad High Court said that merely seeking right to worship Hindu deities does not change the Mosque’s character into a Temple.
by Vasanth Rajasekaran†
Cite as: 2023 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 50
Allahabad High Court said that the High Court has to remain conscious of the fact that being the highest Court of the State, it is guardian of the people and being 3rd pillar of the Constitution, it safeguards interest of the people as a whole, the small sub-sects, tribe then bigger sub-sect community and full circle of the people, all fall within the protection of the Constitution.
by Prerona Banerjee† and Vishal Sinha††
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.
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.
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.
“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
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.
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.
