{"id":199468,"date":"2018-08-07T17:43:43","date_gmt":"2018-08-07T12:13:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=199468"},"modified":"2018-08-07T17:43:43","modified_gmt":"2018-08-07T12:13:43","slug":"2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/","title":{"rendered":"2018 SCC Vol. 6 August 7, 2018 Part 4"},"content":{"rendered":"

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Or. 2 R. 2 \u2014 Bar of second suit:<\/strong> Bar of second suit under this provision is applicable when relief claimed in second suit was also available but not claimed in first suit. [Sucha Singh Sodhi v. Baldev Raj Walia,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 733<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Or. 8 R. 1 proviso \u2014 Extension of period of filing written statement:<\/strong> Court has discretion to allow defendant to file WS beyond that period in exceptional cases for proper and satisfactory reasons to be recorded in writing. Onus is on defendant to plead and show convincing and cogent reason for filing WS beyond prescribed period. [Atcom Technologies Ltd. v. Y.A. Chunawala & Co.,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 639<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 S. 100(5) proviso \u2014 Disposal of second appeal on substantial question(s) of law other than such questions formulated at time of admission of second appeal \u2014 Proper exercise of such power \u2014 Requirements of, clarified:<\/strong> Deciding the second appeal on substantial questions of law formulated in the judgment alone and which questions were not framed at admission stage, does not meet the requirements of S. 100(5) proviso. Proviso to S. 100(5) recognises power of High Court to hear appeal on any other substantial question of law which was not initially framed by High Court under S. 100(4). However, this power can be exercised by High Court only after assigning reasons for framing such additional question of law at the time of hearing of the appeal \u2014 Thus High Court though has the jurisdiction to frame additional question(s) by taking recourse to proviso to S. 100(5) but it is subject to fulfilling the three conditions, first \u201csuch questions should arise in the appeal\u201d, second, \u201cassign the reasons for framing the additional questions\u201d and third, \u201cframe the questions at the time of hearing the appeal\u201d. [Vijay Arjun Bhagat v. Nana Laxman Tapkire,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 727<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Competition Act, 2002 \u2014 S. 6(2) r\/w Ss. 5(a), 5(b), 31, 42 and 43-A \u2014 Penalty for non-compliance with S. 6(2):<\/strong> The proposal to enter into combination was required to be notified to the Commission and the legislative mandate was that the notification had to be made before entering into the combination. Further, the intent being that the Commission has an opportunity to assess whether the proposed combination would cause an appreciable adverse effect on competition and in case combination was to be notified ex post facto for approval, it would defeat the very intendment of the provisions of the Act. [SCM Solifert Ltd. v. CCI, (2018) 6 SCC 631<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 226 \u2014 Writ appeal \u2014 Proper mode of disposal:<\/strong> As Division Bench failed to notice averments in writ petition and dismissed writ appeal,\u00a0writ appeal restored for hearing afresh. [Hemraj Chandrakar v. State of Chhattisgarh,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 628<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 30(1) \u2014 Minority educational institution status \u2014 Authority empowered to decide:<\/strong> All questions relating to minority educational institution status, held, have to be decided by National Commission for Minorities. Ss. 11(f) and 12-B of National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 as amended are wholesome provisions for deciding all these issues. [Paramveer Albert Ekka Memorial College v. State of Jharkhand,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 788<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 199(2), (4) and (6) \u2014 Prosecution for defamation \u2014 Special procedure with regard to S. 199(2):<\/strong> Section 199(2) CrPC provides for a special procedure with regard to initiation of a prosecution for the offence of defamation committed against the constitutional functionaries and public servants mentioned therein. However, the offence alleged to have been committed must be in respect of acts\/conduct in the discharge of public functions of the functionary or public servant concerned, as may be. The prosecution under Section 199(2) CrPC is required to be initiated by the Public Prosecutor on receipt of a previous sanction of the competent authority in the State\/Central Government under Section 199(4) CrPC. Such a complaint is required to be filed in a Court of Session that is alone vested with the jurisdiction to hear and try the alleged offence and even without the case being committed to the said court by a subordinate court. Section 199(2) CrPC read with Section 199(4) CrPC, therefore, envisages a departure from the normal rule of initiation of a complaint before a Magistrate by the affected persons alleging the offence of defamation. The said right, however, is saved even in cases of the category of persons mentioned in subsection (2) of Section 199 CrPC by sub-section (6) thereof. [K.K. Mishra v. State of M.P.,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 676<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Income Tax \u2014 Reassessment of income:<\/strong> The power to reassess income is conditional upon the fact that the assessing officer has some reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment. Further, a liberal interpretation of the words \u201creason to believe\u201d would have the consequence of conferring arbitrary powers on the assessing officer. S. 147 does not allow the reassessment of an income merely because of the fact that the assessing officer has a change of opinion with regard to the interpretation of law differently on the facts that were well within his knowledge even at the time of assessment and doing so would have the effect of giving the assessing officer the power of review and S. 147 confers the power to reassess and not the power to review. [CIT v. Techspan India (P) Ltd., (2018) 6 SCC 685<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970 \u2014 S. 17 and Statement of Objects and Reasons \u2014 Indigenous systems \u2014 Uniform qualification and registration\u00a0\u2014 No exemption under IMCC Act:<\/strong> Appellants not registered either under State Act nor Central Act, cannot be allowed to practice. Quacks cannot be allowed to play with lives of people. S. 17(3)(c) protects indigenous practitioners having practise of more than 5 yrs on date of commencement of IMCC Act only in case State concerned did not have a State Register under State law. [Kerala Ayurveda Paramparya Vaidya Forum v. State of Kerala,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 648<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 \u2014 Ss. 11(1) and 17-A(2) \u2014 Reservation of land for public sector company:<\/strong> Central Government order taking into account various factors while rejecting proposal of State Government, on facts and law, held, valid. Central Government can consider any factor, while considering an approval under S. 17-A(2). Under S. 11(1), preference has to be given to an RP holder(s) who has carried out reconnaissance, while considering grant of PL and when land is held under PL or ML even reservation under S. 17-A(2) is prohibited. [Geomysore Services (India) (P) Ltd. v. Hutti Goldmines Co. Ltd.,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 791<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 \u2014 S. 166 \u2014 Collision of car into rear end of truck resulting in death of one of the passengers in car:<\/strong> Finding of Tribunal was that truck did not brake too suddenly nor veer to centre\/right side of narrow road causing the collision, rather cause of collision was that said car did not maintain \u201csufficient distance\u201d from truck, thus car was being driven rashly and negligently. Claim of contributory negligence re manner in which truckcsuddenly braked, not tenable as when Maruti car was following truck and no fault can be attributed to truck driver, blame must rest on driver of Maruti car for having driven his vehicle rashly and negligently. Hence, plea of contributory negligence on part of truck driver, correctly rejected. [Nishan Singh v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 765<\/a>]<\/p>\n

National Commission for Minority Educational Institutions Act, 2004 \u2014 Ss. 10(1) and 11(f) and 12, 12-A, 12-B, 12-C, 12-F, 2 and 22 \u2014 Harmonious construction of Ss. 10(1) and 11(f) \u2014 Powers of NCMEI to issue minority status certificate \u2014 Scope of:<\/strong> Even if S. 10(1) requires a no-objection certificate for starting a minority institution (which appellant did not have), it should be harmoniously construed with S. 11(f). So construing, S. 11(f) powers are wide enough and NCMEI is empowered to decide any question directly or indirectly relating to minority educational status of an institution. This is clear from effect of wide expressions \u201call questions\u201d and \u201crelating to\u201d in S. 11(f). Hence, NCMEI conferring minority status to an institution in midstream, which originally started as a secular institution, held, valid. [Sisters of St. Joseph of Cluny v. State of W.B.,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 772<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 S. 366 \u2014 Ingredients of:<\/strong> Mere abduction does not bring accused under ambit of S. 366. It must be proved that accused abducted woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be compelled to marry any person or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse. Unless prosecution proves that abduction is for purposes mentioned in S. 366, court cannot hold accused guilty and punish him under S. 366. [Kavita Chandrakant Lakhani v. State of Maharashtra,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 664<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 302\/34 and 201 \u2014 Dowry death \u2014 Demand for dowry \u2014 Wife shot to death because of \u2014 Circumstantial evidence:<\/strong> In this case evidence to prove demand of dowry by appellant-accused (husband and brother-in-law of deceased), present. Story of suicide set up by appellants is wholly unbelievable in the light of evidence brought on record. Circumstances establish chain of events being directly connected with incident, proving involvement of appellants in aforesaid crime beyond reasonable doubt, hence, their conviction confirmed. [Chandra Bhawan Singh v. State of U.P.,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 670<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Rent Control and Eviction \u2014 Acquisition of Residential Building by Tenant \u2014 Eviction decree on ground under S. 20(2)(a) of U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 \u2014 Proviso to S. 20(4) \u2014 Applicability:<\/strong> Proviso provides that if tenant or any member of his family builds or acquires in vacant state any residential building in same city, then tenant would not be saved from liability of eviction even if he pays\/deposits entire rent amount with damages, interest, etc. in terms of main S. 20(4). To attract proviso, member of family who owns a residential building need not be shown to be living with the tenant. [Sudama Devi v. Vijay Nath Gupta,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 759<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Rent Control and Eviction \u2014 Tenancy\/Tenant \u2014 Attornment by tenant:<\/strong> By attornment old tenancy continues and attornment can be proved by several circumstances including conduct of tenant. [Apollo Zipper India Ltd. v. W. Newman & Co. Ltd.,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 744<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Rent Control and Eviction \u2014 Tenancy\/Tenant \u2014 Statutory tenancy \u2014 Heirs and LRs \u2014 Status:<\/strong> They inherit statutory tenancy as joint tenantsand not as tenants-in-common, despite Personal Law to the contrary. [Suresh Kumar Kohli v. Rakesh Jain,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 708<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Police \u2014 Recruitment procedure \u2014 Selection Process\/Procedure \u2014 Selected candidates directed to be sent for training:<\/strong> Additional Advocate General directed to file affidavit stating number of candidates who had qualified in examination in respective categories but were yet to be considered and also outcome of verification of those people who had approached High Court, either as petitioners or as interveners. [Alok Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 813<\/a>]<\/p>\n

U.P. Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats Adhiniyam, 1961 (33 of 1961) (as adopted in Uttaranchal) \u2014 S. 15 \u2014 No-confidence motion:<\/strong> No-confidence motion against Pramukh of Kshettra Panchayat, is valid when it is signed by more than 50% of members. [Ram Pal Singh v. State of U.P.,\u00a0(2018) 6 SCC 692<\/a>]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Or. 2 R. 2 \u2014 Bar of second suit: Bar of second suit under this provision is <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":102451,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,16],"tags":[4751,26884,11411],"class_list":["post-199468","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases","tag-scc","tag-cases-reported","tag-supreme-court-cases"],"yoast_head":"\n2018 SCC Vol. 6 August 7, 2018 Part 4 | 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\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2018 SCC Vol. 6 August 7, 2018 Part 4\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Or. 2 R. 2 \u2014 Bar of second suit: Bar of second suit under this provision is\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/\" \/>\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=\"2018-08-07T12:13:43+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.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=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/07\\\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/07\\\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Saba\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"headline\":\"2018 SCC Vol. 6 August 7, 2018 Part 4\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-08-07T12:13:43+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/07\\\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1778,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/07\\\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2017\\\/01\\\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"#SCC\",\"Cases reported\",\"supreme court cases\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Cases Reported\",\"SCC Weekly\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/07\\\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/07\\\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/07\\\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\\\/\",\"name\":\"2018 SCC Vol. 6 August 7, 2018 Part 4 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/07\\\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/07\\\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2017\\\/01\\\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-08-07T12:13:43+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/07\\\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/07\\\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/07\\\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2017\\\/01\\\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2017\\\/01\\\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2018\\\/08\\\/07\\\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2018 SCC Vol. 6 August 7, 2018 Part 4\"}]},{\"@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:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"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":"2018 SCC Vol. 6 August 7, 2018 Part 4 | 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\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2018 SCC Vol. 6 August 7, 2018 Part 4","og_description":"Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Or. 2 R. 2 \u2014 Bar of second suit: Bar of second suit under this provision is","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-08-07T12:13:43+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/"},"author":{"name":"Saba","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"headline":"2018 SCC Vol. 6 August 7, 2018 Part 4","datePublished":"2018-08-07T12:13:43+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/"},"wordCount":1778,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","keywords":["#SCC","Cases reported","supreme court cases"],"articleSection":["Cases Reported","SCC Weekly"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/","name":"2018 SCC Vol. 6 August 7, 2018 Part 4 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","datePublished":"2018-08-07T12:13:43+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/08\/07\/2018-scc-vol-6-august-7-2018-part-4\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2018 SCC Vol. 6 August 7, 2018 Part 4"}]},{"@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:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","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\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":243041,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/30\/commercial-suits-a-ready-reckoner\/","url_meta":{"origin":199468,"position":0},"title":"Commercial Suits \u2013 A Ready Reckoner","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 30, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Dhananjay Joshi\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/commercial.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/commercial.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/commercial.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/commercial.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/commercial.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":203048,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/04\/powers-under-order-viii-rule-9-cpc-to-be-exercised-by-the-courts-only-in-cases-of-set-off-counter-claim\/","url_meta":{"origin":199468,"position":1},"title":"Powers under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC to be exercised by the courts only in cases of set off\/counter claim","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 4, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Jharkhand High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar, J., partly allowed a writ petition filed against an order passed by the trial court whereby petitioner\u2019s application under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC had been rejected by the trial court. The main issue that arose before the Court was\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":26301,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2015\/11\/17\/cases-reported-in-2015-scc-vol-9-october-28-2015-part-2\/","url_meta":{"origin":199468,"position":2},"title":"Cases Reported in 2015 SCC Vol. 9 October 28, 2015 Part 2","author":"Sucheta","date":"November 17, 2015","format":false,"excerpt":"Arms Act, 1959 \u2014 Ss. 7, 20, 23, 25, 27 and 30 \u2014 Applicability of 1959 Act: Recovery of large quantity of unlicensed and unauthorised arms and ammunition from crew members of foreign vessel intercepted in Indian territorial waters, attracts provisions of Arms Act for initiating prosecution. [State of T.N.\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":287067,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/17\/rejection-of-written-statement-by-commercial-court-just-kerala-hc-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":199468,"position":3},"title":"Kerala High Court upholds Commercial Court’s refusal to accept delayed written statement","author":"Ridhi","date":"March 17, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Referring to the amended portion of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Supreme Court's interpretation, Kerala High Court found the Commercial Court's refusal for acceptance after delay in filing written statement beyond 120 days justified.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Kerala High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-764.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-764.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-764.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-764.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":177374,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/22\/2017-scc-vol-10-december-14-2017-part-3\/","url_meta":{"origin":199468,"position":4},"title":"2017 SCC Vol. 10 December 14, 2017 Part 3","author":"Saba","date":"December 22, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Or. 2 R. 2 r\/w R. 4 \u2014 Mesne profits: In a case where the plaintiff has claimed mesne profits or arrears of rent in a suit filed for ejectment of the tenant and has relinquished his rights vis-\u00e0-vis mesne profits or arrears of rent\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":286916,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/15\/winds-of-change-in-commercial-disputes-via-summary-judgments-%e2%80%95-the-why-the-how-and-the-way-forward\/","url_meta":{"origin":199468,"position":5},"title":"Winds of Change in Commercial Disputes via Summary Judgments \u2015 The Why, the How and the Way Forward","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 15, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Ishita Chandra\u2020","rel":"","context":"In "Op Eds"","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-740.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-740.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-740.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-740.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199468","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=199468"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/199468\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/102451"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=199468"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=199468"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=199468"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}