Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Rule 22(3)(1) of the Delhi Senior Citizens Rules outlines a procedure for eviction from a senior citizen’s property and sub-rule (iv) allows the authority to conduct summary proceedings and order eviction of a son, daughter, or legal heir for non-maintenance and ill-treatment.
After applying the rule that all the contemporaneous documents are to be read together, to discern the true purport of the contract, Supreme Court said that the parties intended assignment of the debt, i.e., the rents payable.
“The pleading made by respondent-plaintiff through the power of attorney holder in the plaint is to be examined as against the statement made by the power of the attorney holder as a witness.”
The principle governing the evidence in civil cases is that there should be a preponderance of the events which should be proved unlike in criminal matters, where the evidence have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the burden of proof is on the party which will suffer if such evidence is not proved.
“Non-framing of an issue, which is otherwise covered in a broader issue and for which there was sufficient pleading and evidence, the suit could not have been dismissed on that ground.”
“Offences of forging documents for transferring ownership of land worth crores are grave in nature. Hence, while it is extremely important to protect the personal liberty of a person, it is equally incumbent to analyse the seriousness of the offence and determine if there is a need for custodial interrogation.”
Supreme Court said that the entry of the appellant over part of the suit property is simply as a licencee of the respondent. He does not continue to occupy it in the capacity of the owner. Thus, the licence having been terminated, he has no right to remain in possession but to restore possession to the person having rightful possessory title over it.
The Delhi High Court opined that that technicalities and procedural defects, which do not go to the root of the matter, should not be permitted to defeat a just cause, more so in cases where suits are initiated or defended on behalf of public corporations.
While Justice Shah stated that the plaintiff had not produced the Power of Attorney, Justice Nagarathna opined that non-production of Power of Attorney was not fatal to the case of the original plaintiff.
Karnataka High Court: Suraj Govindaraj, J., allowed the petition and quashed the compromise decree in the original suit filed before Principal Senior
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of K.M. Joseph* and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ., held that mere writing the word “cancelled” or drawing
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of NV Ramana, CJ and AS Bopanna* and Hima Kohli, JJ has held that when the complainant/payee
Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., observed that an advocate who is engaged by a client has to play only one role,
Bombay HC’s Justice Dama Seshadri Naidu while discussing, quotes EBC’s C.K. Thakker’ s Code of Civil Procedure
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J., laid down directions to avoid future abuse of judicial process like in the instant
Tripura High Court: Arindam Lodh, J. dismissed a writ petition by the petitioner challenging the show cause notice issued against him whereby
Securities Exchange Board of India (SEBI): Anant Barua, Whole Time Member, denied KSBL’s request to permit the continuation of Karvy Stock Broking Limited
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Petitioner had prayed for anticipatory bail in FIR registered under Sections 420, 465, 467, 471 and 120-B