Case BriefsHigh Courts

Rajasthan High Court: The Bench of Dr Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J., dismissed the petition filed for mainly amendment of the issues framed in the pleadings at a later stage.

The facts of the case were that the respondent-landlord had filed an application under Section 18(2) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 before the Rent Tribunal, for recovery of arrears of rent. The petitioner filed a reply to the said application under Section 18(2) of the Rajasthan Rent Control Act, 2001 and denied the existence of the landlord-tenant relationship between him and the respondent. This started the series of litigation that followed thereafter between the parties. During this, the petitioner filed an application under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act, 2001 for amendment of the issues. The petitioner also made a request to delete issues framed earlier and prayed for framing of a new issue. Also, he filed an application under Section 21 read with Section 11 of the Court Fee Act and under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC with the averment that the respondent in the rent application had although prayed for arrears of rent along with 18% interest per annum, but did not pay the appropriate court fee. The argument advanced by the respondent was that the eviction suit was filed in the year 2010 and had been going on for almost nine years, and thus, at that stage when no material change in the original pleadings were made, then permitting the petitioner to file new applications just for the purpose of delaying the proceedings was inappropriate.

The Court held that the parties were satisfied with the issues so framed at that juncture, and therefore, since no material change was reflected in the pleadings, at a belated stage, the petitioner was barred to contend that the issues need to be re-framed. The petition was thus rejected. [Umesh Jhamb v. Parkash Rani, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 326, Order dated 12-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court at Goa: The Division Bench of M.S. Sonak & Prithviraj K. Chavan, JJ. dismissed a set of petitions holding that the present was not an appropriate case to entertain a constitutional challenge to Section 33(3) of Goa Land Revenue Code, 1968.

Vires of Section 33(3) were challenged in the present petition. The petitioners claimed to be agricultural tenants of the properties subject to demolition by State Authorities. He had earlier prayed for an interim relief in the matter which was refused by the High Court.

Presently, the Court was informed that the structures in question had been already demolished. It was noted that the petitioners failed to state with clarity as to who had put up the structures and whether they were put up by permission of Authorities. The Court was of the view that it was incumbent on the petitioners, claiming to be agricultural tenants to disclose the genesis of such structures. It was held that in the absence of such disclosures, the Court was not in a position to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 and Article 227 to extend any relief to the petitioners.

Insofar as a challenge to Section 33(3) was concerned, the Court observed that, “it is settled position in law that issues on the constitutionality of a statute are not to be decided for mere academic purpose.” In the present case, the petitioners made out no case whatsoever for grant of any reliefs or for extending any protection to the structures in question. As such the Court held that it will not be appropriate to entertain any constitutional challenge to Section 33(3) at the behest of present petitioners. Such challenge can perhaps be considered in the appropriate case instituted by appropriate petitioner. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed. [Jose Manuel Monteiro v. State of Goa, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 121, dated 29-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench dismissed objections filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against an award in an appeal before it.

Upon analysis the Court found that the impugned judgment did not resemble a judgment as it did not include discussion upon issues and the rationale for the decision the court took. The impugned order had only referred to the law under Section 34 with the observation that the court is satisfied that the objections filed did not come within the scope of Section 34 of the Act.

The Court referred to Harbhajan Kaur Bhatia v. M/s Aadya Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd.,  2017 SCC OnLine Del 9176, and held that the impugned judgment was not a judgment as can be said in law, setting it aside. The Court remanded the matter before the District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi for proper disposal. Appeal allowed. [India Infoline Ltd. v. Santosh Kumar Saxena,  2017 SCC OnLine Del 11254, decided on 30.10.2017]