{"id":272442,"date":"2022-08-27T14:00:13","date_gmt":"2022-08-27T08:30:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=272442"},"modified":"2022-08-27T14:00:13","modified_gmt":"2022-08-27T08:30:13","slug":"court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/","title":{"rendered":"Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore| CPC Cost Provisions &#8220;unlikely to deter&#8221; lawyers from providing bona fide legal advice; Constitutionality upheld"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\">&#160; &#160;<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore<\/span>: In a case of possession of Class A controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking that challenged the Ss. 356, 357 and 409 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 2010 (&#8216;CPC&#39;) for being inconsistent with Arts. 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the bench of <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Sundaresh Menon, CJ.<\/span>,Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Woo Bih Li JAD declared that the CPC Cost provisions were not violative of Articles 9 and 12 while noting that the provisions cannot rationally deter a lawyer from acting in <i>bona fide.<\/i> <\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Factual Matrix<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\">The appellant in the case, Abdul Rahim, and a co-accused person, Ong Seow Ping (&#8220;Ong&#8221;), were scheduled to be executed on Friday, 05-08-2022 after conviction in a joint trial for possessing a Class A controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking under S. 5(1)(a), read with S. 5(2), of the Misuse of Drugs Act for which their appeal was dismissed and eventually filed OC on 01-08-2022. The appellant also challenged CPC Cost Provisions stating that they are invalid for being inconsistent with the Constitution.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Appellant&#39;s Contention<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\">The appellants contented that the Declaration Claim is inconsistent with the principles of natural justice and the Constitution. The appellants claimed that it <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\"><i>&#8220;<\/i>prevented and\/or obstructed from appointing lawyers to review and\/or challenge their conviction and\/or sentence and\/or the clemency process and\/or make other legal challenges.&#8221;<\/span> which denied them access to justice and thus, violated Articles 9(1) and 12(1) of the Constitution. The appellants claimed that the exposure to costs by the CPC Cost Provisions made it unlikely for the lawyers to represent them out of fear of costs. <\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\">The appellant further mentioned in his OC, 173 as grounds of his stay application, his despondence regarding the assigned counsel, Manoj in joint trial for not calling material witness in the case and not objecting to the facts moulded by the authorities in the trial.<\/p>\n<p style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Opinion and Analysis<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\">Relying on <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\"><i>Roslan Bin Bakar<\/i> v. <i>Public Prosecutor<\/i>, [2022] SGCA 57<\/span>, the Court opined that the Articles 9 and 12 were not violated by the Declaration Claim. The CPC Cost Provisions were <i>&#8220;unlikely to deter&#8221;<\/i> counsel from providing <i>bona fide<\/i> legal advice and representing clients in good faith. The court also observed that CPC Cost Provisions merely prevents the person or lawyer to appear before a court &#8220;improperly&#8221; and does not deter them from acting in<i> bona fide<\/i> appeals of the death-row inmates, moreover, the appellants failed to show a viable legal cause of action supported by facts. <\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court also stated that the OC 173 was devoid of merits and was an abuse of the process of law. The Court dismissed the oral application for the stay on execution presented after five days of notice of execution. The Court exercised its powers under Or. 3 R. 2(2) ROC <span style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8220;to prevent an abuse of the process of the Court&#8221; <\/span>while stating that the OC 173 was <i>&#8220;inappropriate&#8221;<\/i>. <\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt; margin-bottom: 3;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">Iskandar bin Rahmat v. Attorney General, [2022] SGCA 58<\/span>]<\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">*Ritu Singh, Editorial Assistant has put this report together.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>&#8220;The claim pertains to events that occurred between 2016 and 2018 and was then not followed up until 2022, a few days before the sentence was to be carried out. For all these reasons we are satisfied that OC 173 is without merit and an abuse of process and cannot therefore be a basis for us to grant a stay of execution.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67011,"featured_media":204071,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,12],"tags":[33115,51250,32667,51251,51252,2805],"class_list":["post-272442","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-foreigncourts","tag-abuse-of-process-of-court","tag-accused-person","tag-constitutional-law","tag-equality-before-the-law","tag-fundamental-liberties","tag-natural_justice"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore| CPC Cost Provisions &quot;unlikely to deter&quot; lawyers from providing bona fide legal advice; Constitutionality upheld | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"In a case of possession of Class A controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking that challenged the Ss. 356, 357 and 409\" \/>\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\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore| CPC Cost Provisions &quot;unlikely to deter&quot; lawyers from providing bona fide legal advice; Constitutionality upheld\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In a case of possession of Class A controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking that challenged the Ss. 356, 357 and 409\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/\" \/>\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=\"2022-08-27T08:30:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"880\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 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\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/\",\"name\":\"Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore| CPC Cost Provisions \\\"unlikely to deter\\\" lawyers from providing bona fide legal advice; Constitutionality upheld | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-08-27T08:30:13+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\"},\"description\":\"In a case of possession of Class A controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking that challenged the Ss. 356, 357 and 409\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":880,\"caption\":\"SC Singapore\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore| CPC Cost Provisions &#8220;unlikely to deter&#8221; lawyers from providing bona fide legal advice; Constitutionality upheld\"}]},{\"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore| CPC Cost Provisions \"unlikely to deter\" lawyers from providing bona fide legal advice; Constitutionality upheld | SCC Times","description":"In a case of possession of Class A controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking that challenged the Ss. 356, 357 and 409","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\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore| CPC Cost Provisions \"unlikely to deter\" lawyers from providing bona fide legal advice; Constitutionality upheld","og_description":"In a case of possession of Class A controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking that challenged the Ss. 356, 357 and 409","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2022-08-27T08:30:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":880,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/","name":"Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore| CPC Cost Provisions \"unlikely to deter\" lawyers from providing bona fide legal advice; Constitutionality upheld | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg","datePublished":"2022-08-27T08:30:13+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe"},"description":"In a case of possession of Class A controlled drug for the purpose of trafficking that challenged the Ss. 356, 357 and 409","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg","width":1330,"height":880,"caption":"SC Singapore"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/08\/27\/court-of-appeal-of-the-republic-of-singapore-cpc-cost-provisions-unlikely-to-deter-lawyers-from-providing-bona-fide-legal-advice-constitutionality-upheld\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore| CPC Cost Provisions &#8220;unlikely to deter&#8221; lawyers from providing bona fide legal advice; Constitutionality upheld"}]},{"@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\/84e42bab48238baf12c7e33b3d9761fe","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/34e366be721c41333586de05faa13743195f5b142dcd7a015c6fabd2389521d0?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_4\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/10\/SupremeCourtBuilding-Singapore-20070210.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":279815,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/12\/17\/cant-allow-collateral-attack-on-the-criminal-convictions-high-court-of-the-republic-of-singapore-dismisses-constitutional-challenge-by-4-inmates-against-provisions-in-drug-law\/","url_meta":{"origin":272442,"position":0},"title":"Can&#8217;t allow collateral attack on the criminal convictions: High Court of the Republic of Singapore dismisses constitutional challenge by 4 inmates against provisions in drug law","author":"Editor","date":"December 17, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cDespite the claimants\u2019 assertion that they seek only to examine the Constitution, the true subject matter of the present application is the propriety of the claimants\u2019 convictions, which were the remit of their respective cases in the High Court and Court of Appeal. This application for permission amounts to a\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"High Court of the Republic of Singapore","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/12\/MicrosoftTeams-image103.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":244138,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/02\/19\/divorce\/","url_meta":{"origin":272442,"position":1},"title":"Del HC | Permanent residents of Singapore, residing there since 2012, wife seeks an injunction for suit filed in Singapore by husband regarding matrimonial dispute. HC rejects appeal. Why? Read on","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"February 19, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: The Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi and Rekha Palli, JJ., upheld the Family Court\u2019s decision and directed the parties approach the local Court of Singapore with regard to sorting out their matrimonial dispute.\u00a0 Issue Present appeal was filed seeking a direction against the Family Court\u2019s decision, wherein\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":273570,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/09\/12\/chhattisgarh-high-court-res-judicata-section11-code-of-civil-procedure-possession-landlord-tenant-directly-and-substantially-in-issue-heard-and-finally-decided-former-suit-subsequent-suit-title-a\/","url_meta":{"origin":272442,"position":2},"title":"Chhattisgarh High Court remands suit back to the Trial Court; Observes suit is not barred by Res Judicata and must be decided on merits","author":"Editor","date":"September 12, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Chhattisgarh High Court: In an appeal against the decision of Trial Court of dismissing the suit mainly on the ground that the suit preferred by the appellant was barred under the provisions of Section 11 Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC), Arvind Singh Chandel, J. has observed that the suit preferred\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Chhattisgarh High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-29-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-29-1.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-29-1.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-29-1.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-29-1.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":283308,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/02\/07\/s-149-cpc-acts-as-an-exception-or-even-a-proviso-to-s-4-of-court-fees-act-1870-supreme-court-reiterates-legal-research-legal-news-updates\/","url_meta":{"origin":272442,"position":3},"title":"Section 149 CPC acts as an exception, or even a proviso to Section 4 of Court Fees Act ,1870; Supreme Court reiterates","author":"Editor","date":"February 7, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court reiterated that in terms of Section 4, an appeal cannot be filed before a High Court without court fee, if the same is prescribed. But this provision must be read along with Section 149 of CPC.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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\/2023\/02\/MicrosoftTeams-image-308.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":299788,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/08\/22\/singapore-courts-landmark-ruling-an-insight-into-indian-courts-exercise-of-inherent-powers-uco-bank-v-green-mint-pte-ltd-a-case-comment\/","url_meta":{"origin":272442,"position":4},"title":"Singapore Court&#8217;s Landmark Ruling: An Insight into Indian Courts&#8217; Exercise of Inherent Powers UCO Bank v. Green Mint Pte. Ltd.: A case comment","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 22, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"by Sanjana Sachdev\u2020 and Sanskriti Sinha\u2020\u2020","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"singapore court's landmark","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/singapore-courts-landmark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/singapore-courts-landmark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/singapore-courts-landmark.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/singapore-courts-landmark.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":69482,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/09\/14\/an-ex-parte-divorce-decree-is-not-an-interlocutory-order-hence-appealable-under-s-19-of-family-courts-act\/","url_meta":{"origin":272442,"position":5},"title":"An ex parte divorce decree is not an interlocutory order, hence appealable under S. 19 of Family Courts Act","author":"Saba","date":"September 14, 2016","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: While deciding upon the challenge to the maintainability of the present matrimonial appeal as per Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, the Division Bench of B.K. Nayak and K.R. Mohapatra, JJ., held that an ex parte divorce decree is not an interlocutory order, hence an\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","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\/272442","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\/67011"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=272442"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/272442\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/204071"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=272442"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=272442"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=272442"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}