{"id":114591,"date":"2017-03-22T11:21:29","date_gmt":"2017-03-22T05:51:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=114591"},"modified":"2017-03-22T11:21:29","modified_gmt":"2017-03-22T05:51:29","slug":"2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/","title":{"rendered":"2017 SCC Vol. 2 March 14, 2017 Part 5"},"content":{"rendered":"

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Ss. 33, 2(2) and 35-A & Or. 20, Or. 6 R. 4 and Or. 41 R. 27 \u2014 Challenge to a decree on ground that it was obtained by fraud concealing relevant\/material facts from court:<\/strong> A mere concealment or non-disclosure of relevant facts without intent to deceive or a bald allegation of fraud without proof and intent to deceive, would not render a decree obtained by a party as fraudulent. Fraud must not merely be alleged but proved. It is only after evidence is led to establish intent to deceive that a conclusion of fraud played on court could be arrived at. [Harjas Rai Makhija v. Pushparani Jain,\u00a0(2017) 2 SCC 797<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 227 \u2014 Maintainability \u2014 Delay\/Laches\/Limitation:<\/strong> No period of limitation has been prescribed for filing petition under Art. 227. If petition is filed with some delay and satisfactory explanation is given for delay then such petition needed to be entertained. Period of limitation prescribed for S. 115 CPC, is inapplicable to petition under Art. 227. [Bithika Mazumdar v. Sagar Pal,\u00a0(2017) 2 SCC 748<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Arts. 226 and 21 \u2014 Maintainability of writ petition \u2014 Questions of fact:<\/strong> Summary dismissal of writ petition alleging torture of petitioner and her family at the hands of certain police officers and seeking various directions in the matter, in a cryptic manner, merely on ground that some disputed questions of fact were involved therein, not proper. [Sangita Vilas Ingle v. State of Maharashtra,\u00a0(2017) 2 SCC 728<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Contempt of Court \u2014 Nature and Scope \u2014 Broadly \u2014 Role of party other than court and contemnor:<\/strong> There is no scope of impleadment of third party\/parties without due consent and authorization of contemnor. Clarified, contempt proceedings are a matter strictly between Court and alleged contemnor. [C.S. Karnan, In Re,\u00a0(2017) 2 SCC 756<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Courts, Tribunals and Judiciary \u2014 Judiciary \u2014 Judicial propriety\/Bias \u2014 Judicial independence and autonomy vis-\u00e0-vis probity of Judges:<\/strong> Petitioner, a retired Supreme Court Judge, while holding said office in one of his judgments had banned Jallikattu and after some months he received an award from People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in whose favour judgment had been delivered. Proceedings instituted by High Court against petitioner Judge on ground of bias favouring PETA, stayed though permission to file SLP granted. [K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan v. Salai Chakrapani,\u00a0(2017) 2 SCC 795<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 482 and 438 \u2014 Quashing of FIR and consequential investigation \u2014 Scope of inherent power of High Court under S. 482:<\/strong> Though in appropriate cases, High Court can quash investigation and pass interim order as considered proper, but while declining to interfere investigation, it cannot direct police not to arrest petitioner as that would amount to converting proceedings under S. 482 into those under S. 438 without satisfying its conditions. Practice of filing petition under S. 482 initially for quashing of FIR and investigation and then seeking relief of enlargement on bail on surrendering of petitioner before Magistrate should be stopped and Court should desist from issuing order on that basis as same would neither fall within ambit of S. 482 CrPC nor S. 438 CrPC nor Art. 226 of the Constitution. Power under S. 482 CrPC (or Art. 226 of the Constitution) should be exercised sparingly with judicial self-restraint and circumspection. [State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani,\u00a0(2017) 2 SCC 779<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (37 of 1966) \u2014 Ss. 2(9), (30), 88(a), 125, 126 and 127 \u2014 Land acquired for public purpose under town planning scheme:<\/strong> In this case appellants sought release of their land reserved for public purpose under town planning scheme since respondents failed to acquire said land within 10 yrs from final development plan as provided under S. 127, but Court observed that since, S. 127 is not applicable to town planning schemes and the same was finally sanctioned by Government, there was no error in order passed by High Court dismissing writ petitions on ground that S. 127 does not apply to lands reserved for public purpose under town planning scheme, and, as such, there is no lapsing of reservation of land under S. 127. [Pukhrajmal Sagarmal Lunkad v. Municipal Council, Jalgaon,\u00a0(2017) 2 SCC 722<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 96 and 97 and S. 300 Exception 2:<\/strong> Right of private defence is a mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defence into operation and it is not necessary that there should be an actual commission of offence in order to give rise to right of private defence. [Suresh Singhal v. State (Delhi Admn.),\u00a0(2017) 2 SCC 737<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Pension \u2014 Pension Scheme \u2014 Exercise of option within period of six months in terms of Regn. 4 of PEPSU Road Transport Corporation Employees\u2019 Pension\/Gratuity and General Provident Fund Regulations, 1992:<\/strong> Employee deemed to continue under existing CPF benefit. Further held, in absence of any exception engrafted in deeming provision and deeming provision being legal fiction, it embraces all employees who do not opt for new pension scheme within prescribed period. Since plaintiff had not opted for pension scheme, and after retirement had received CPF benefits without any protest and never before raised any grievance therefor, he cannot be granted benefit of pension scheme which would amount to conferring of double benefit. [PEPSU RTC v. Amandeep Singh,\u00a0(2017) 2 SCC 766<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Special Relief Act, 1963 \u2014 Ss. 38, 39 and 6:<\/strong> Injunction sought by plaintiff gratuitous licensee for restraining co-owners of suit property from dispossessing plaintiff, held, not maintainable. [Behram Tejani v. Azeem Jagani,\u00a0(2017) 2 SCC 759<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 \u2014 Ss. 20-A, 20(8), 3 to 5 and 15 \u2014 Infraction of S. 20-A(1):<\/strong> An infraction of S. 20-A(1), TADA Act, would vitiate entire proceedings and result in acquittal of accused for offences under TADA Act. Hence, appellant is entitled to be released on bail for following reasons: (i) prior approval required under S. 20-A(1), TADA Act, was not taken from District Superintendent of Police before FIR was recorded; (ii) admittedly, appellant had been suffering incarceration for more than 12 yrs; (iii) only 25 out of 192 witnesses have been examined so far; (iv) there is no likelihood of completion of trial in the near future; and (v) though there is a confessional statement of appellant recorded under S. 15, TADA Act, same cannot be looked into, in view of violation of S. 20-A(1), TADA Act. Therefore, on aforementioned reasons, conditional bail granted to appellant. Also, as the case pertains to year 1993, Designated Court requested to expedite and complete trial at the earliest. [Umarmia v. State of Gujarat,\u00a0(2017) 2 SCC 731<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 \u2014 Ss. 20-A and 3 to 5 \u2014 Mandatory nature of S. 20-A:<\/strong> Violation of procedure prescribed under S. 20-A, would vitiate entire proceedings with respect to TADA offences. [Umarmiya Ismailmiya Saiyed v. State of Gujarat,\u00a0(2017) 2 SCC 752<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Ss. 33, 2(2) and 35-A & Or. 20, Or. 6 R. 4 and Or. 41 R. 27 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":115071,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-114591","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases"],"yoast_head":"\n2017 SCC Vol. 2 March 14, 2017 Part 5 | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2017 SCC Vol. 2 March 14, 2017 Part 5\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Ss. 33, 2(2) and 35-A & Or. 20, Or. 6 R. 4 and Or. 41 R. 27\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-03-22T05:51:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/scc-cover-14-3-2017.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/\",\"name\":\"2017 SCC Vol. 2 March 14, 2017 Part 5 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/scc-cover-14-3-2017.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2017-03-22T05:51:29+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/scc-cover-14-3-2017.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/scc-cover-14-3-2017.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2017 SCC Vol. 2 March 14, 2017 Part 5\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\",\"name\":\"Saba\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Saba\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2017 SCC Vol. 2 March 14, 2017 Part 5 | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2017 SCC Vol. 2 March 14, 2017 Part 5","og_description":"Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Ss. 33, 2(2) and 35-A & Or. 20, Or. 6 R. 4 and Or. 41 R. 27","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2017-03-22T05:51:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/scc-cover-14-3-2017.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/","name":"2017 SCC Vol. 2 March 14, 2017 Part 5 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/scc-cover-14-3-2017.jpg","datePublished":"2017-03-22T05:51:29+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/scc-cover-14-3-2017.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/scc-cover-14-3-2017.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/03\/22\/2017-scc-vol-2-march-14-2017-part-5\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2017 SCC Vol. 2 March 14, 2017 Part 5"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785","name":"Saba","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Saba"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/03\/scc-cover-14-3-2017.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":251027,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/07\/09\/lok-adalat-award\/","url_meta":{"origin":114591,"position":0},"title":"Sikk HC | Can Award of the Lok Adalat be assailed by way of a petition under Arts. 226 and\/or 227 of Constitution? Court answers","author":"Editor","date":"July 9, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Sikkim High Court: Jitendra Kumar Maheshwari, CJ. allowed a writ petition which was filed assailing the updated Award passed by the Lok Adalat though signed on 26-06-2015. The facts were that petitioner 1 was the wife of Defendant 1 in the suit and petitioners 2 and 3 were his sons.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":244477,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/27\/sale-confirmed-objections-of-judgment-debtor-overruled-can-consent-decree-be-set-aside-in-such-case-supreme-court-answers\/","url_meta":{"origin":114591,"position":1},"title":"Sale confirmed; objections of judgment debtor overruled. Can consent decree be set aside in such case? Supreme Court answers","author":"Editor","date":"February 27, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court: The 3-Judge Bench comprising of R. Subhash Reddy, M. R. Shah* and Ashok Bhushan, JJ., set aside the order of High Court of judicature at Karnataka holding that the Court had exceeded its jurisdiction while quashing the order. The Bench expressed, \u201cWhen the mortgaged property was sold in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/02\/sc-3-3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":266381,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/04\/karnataka-hc-issues-directions-in-matters-relating-to-compromise-before-the-lok-adalat\/","url_meta":{"origin":114591,"position":2},"title":"Kar HC issues general directions in matters relating to compromise before the Lok Adalat which are challenged by way of writ petitions","author":"Editor","date":"May 4, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: Suraj Govindaraj, J., allowed the petition and quashed the compromise decree in the original suit filed before Principal Senior Civil Judge at Hubballi in the Lok-Adalat proceedings. The facts of the case are such that a compromise petition was filed before Principal Senior Civil Judge at Hubballi\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Karnataka High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/04\/New_Karnataka.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":24091,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/10\/29\/2015-scc-vol-9-october-21-2015-part-1\/","url_meta":{"origin":114591,"position":3},"title":"2015 SCC Vol. 9 October 21, 2015 Part 1","author":"Sucheta","date":"October 29, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 \u2014 Ss. 2(2), (1)(f), Pt. I or Pt. II \u2014 International commercial arbitration: As arbitration agreement entered into between the parties was controlled and governed by conditions postulated in the principal contract which pre-dated Balco, (2012) 9 SCC 552 and nothing was there in the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Cases Reported"","block_context":{"text":"Cases Reported","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casesreported\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":213911,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/24\/ori-hc-order-21-rule-29-cpc-cannot-come-to-the-rescue-unless-sufficient-cause-is-shown-to-stay-the-execution-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":114591,"position":4},"title":"Ori HC | Order 21 Rule 29 CPC cannot come to the rescue unless sufficient cause is shown to stay the execution case","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 24, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: The Bench of A.K. Rath, J. dismissed the petition filed against the order which rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order 21 Rule 29 CPC to stay the further proceeding in an execution case till the disposal of another civil suit.\u00a0 The facts of the\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":258611,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/16\/scope-of-interference-by-hc-under-art-227-of-constitution-of-india\/","url_meta":{"origin":114591,"position":5},"title":"Scope of interference by HC under Art. 227 of Constitution of India: Can an interlocutory order of a Commercial Court be challenged in High Court? Del HC explains","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 16, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Amit Bansal, J., decided under whether the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India can interfere in the decision of the Commercial Court or not. Instant petition was filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning the order passed by the Commercial\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114591","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=114591"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/114591\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/115071"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=114591"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=114591"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=114591"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}