Law School NewsOthers

The Advanced Criminal Law Studies Committee of School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Bengaluru after having successfully hosted the past three editions of National Trial Advocacy and Judgment Writing Competition is pleased to announce the 4th edition of the same from 31st of January to 2nd of February 2019.

About the Trial Competition:

The Trial Advocacy Competition is aimed at nurturing and creating opportunities for development of the skills of litigation, evidence establishment and examination in Trial Courts. The Judgment Writing Competition is with the purpose of enhancing the reasoning and writing skills of budding lawyers and students aspiring to opt a career in Judiciary.

Who is it for/eligibility:

The Competition is open for all students who are pursuing three or five-year LL.B. Degree Course in Universities/Colleges/Law Departments in India, as recognized by the Bar Council of India.

Team size: The team shall consist of three Members only: Two Speakers and One Researcher.

Registration Procedure: The participation in the 4th SLCU National Trial Advocacy and Judgment Writing Competition is restricted to 24 teams only. The first 24 teams that confirm and complete the final registration formalities as enumerated under Article 8 of the Rules of the Competition shall be entitled to participate in the said Competition.

The slots shall be reserved based on a ‘first come first serve basis’. The first 24 teams through their respective Official College’ Email ID or Moot Court Society/Moot Court Association Email ID to send the duly filled Registration form(with Signature & Seal affixed by the concerned authorities) and the scanned copy of the Demand Draft of the Registration fee and accommodation fee (if required by the Team) by an e-mail to criminallaw.committee@law.christuniversity.in with the subject of the e-mail as ‘Final Registration: 4th SLCU NTAC 2019_your respective College/University name’ shall get their slot reserved.

Kindly note that only one team per College/Institution/University shall be permitted to take part in the Competition.

Fee Details: The Teams shall pay a non-refundable registration fee of INR 5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) by way of Demand Draft and an additional non-refundable amount of INR 3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) by way of Demand Draft for availing accommodation drawn in favour of ‘CHRIST UNIVERSITY’, payable at ‘Bengaluru’.

Deadlines/dates: The interested teams are requested to send the scanned copy of the final Registration form and Demand Draft to criminallaw.committee@law.christuniversity.inon or before 10th January, 2019, 11:59 PMand the hard copy of the Registration form and the Demand Draft, on or before 20th January 2019.

The Trial Proposition shall be released soon. Kindly note that there shall be no Memorial Submission for the same.

Contact info: E-mail address: criminallaw.committee@law.christuniversity.in

Student Conveners:

  1. Siri Prasad – siri.prasad@law.christuniversity.in +91 7353297024;
  2. Pushkar Keshav – pushkar.k@law.christuniversity.in  +91 9902592997

School of Law, CHRIST (Deemed to be University), Hosur Road, Bengaluru – 560 029.

For the Rules of the Competition, refer 4th SLCU-NTAC, 2019_Rules

and the Registration form, 4th SLCU-NTAC, 2019_Registration_form

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: A special leave petition was filed before a Division Bench comprising of Madan B. Lokur and Deepak Gupta, JJ.  against the judgment of H.P. High Court in a landlord-tenant dispute. The Hon’ble Bench found the judgment impugned to be incomprehensible and therefore set aside the judgment.

The High Court had allowed a petition filed by the tenant against the order of Executing Court whereby it had allowed the landlord’s execution petition. Earlier, the landlord had brought an eviction suit against the tenant for defaulting the payment of rent. Pursuant to which, the trial court had passed a decree in favour of the landlord and against the tenant. Subsequently, the tenant paid the rent to the landlord and he acquiesced thereby not evicting the tenant. However, thereafter, the landlord filed the said execution petition before the Executing Court for execution of the decree passed by the trial court. The Executing Court allowed the petition. The tenant preferred a revision petition, against the said order of the Executing Court, before the High Court which was allowed and the Executing Court was directed to decide the execution petition afresh. Aggrieved thereby, the landlord filed a petition for special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court.

Few excerpts from the order passed by the High Court in Pawan Kumar Sharma v. Sarla Sood2016 SCC OnLine HP 2699 are:–

“… apposite objections preferred therebefore by the JD/tenant manifesting therein qua the decree put to execution therebefore not warranting recording of affirmative orders thereon, its standing fully satisfied, standing stained with a vice arising from the factum of its palpably slighting the factum of unfoldments occurring in the relevant record existing therebefore comprised in the testification …”

“… the acquiescence qua the relevant facet made by the GPA of the landlord in rent petition which stood instituted subsequent to the pronouncement made in rent petition holding bespeakings therein of the tenant making the relevant liquidation holds the sequel of the landlord accepting the attornment of rent to him by the tenant/JD other than the statutory mode for its deposit. ”

“… it has to be concluded of the landlord by procrastinating the execution of the executable decree rendered on 6.11.1999 in Rent Petition No. 1-2 of 1996 upto 29.09.2005 whereat a pronouncement in rent petition also occurred his also thereupon renewing the tenancy qua the relevant premises vis-a-vis the JD.”

The Supreme Court, on hearing the counsel, was of the considered and categorical opinion that the order impugned cannot be sustained. The reason being, in the words of the Court itself, it was not possible to comprehend the contents of the impugned order passed by the High Court. The order was therefore set aside and the matter sent back to the High Court for de novo consideration on merits. [Sarla Sood v. Pawan Kumar Sharma,2017 SCC OnLine SC 1673, dated 11-04-2017]