{"id":57051,"date":"2016-07-18T12:49:04","date_gmt":"2016-07-18T07:19:04","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=57051"},"modified":"2016-09-13T12:35:23","modified_gmt":"2016-09-13T07:05:23","slug":"2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/","title":{"rendered":"2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 7, 2016 Part 2"},"content":{"rendered":"

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Ss. 148 and 151 \u2014 Discretion of court to extend time for doing any act prescribed\/allowed by CPC: <\/strong>Words \u201cnot exceeding thirty days in total<\/em>\u201d have been inserted vide Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Act, 1999, with a view to curtail procedural delay caused by any party to the suit or proceeding. Therefore, enlargement of time under S. 148 CPC, whether one-time or phased, cannot exceed thirty days but, if act could not be performed within thirty days for reasons beyond control of parties, time beyond maximum thirty days can be extended under S. 151 CPC. [Nashik Municipal Corpn. v. R.M. Bhandari, (2016) 6 SCC 245<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Constitution of India \u2014 Art. 226 \u2014 Service matters \u2014 Interference with quantum of punishment \u2014 When permissible:<\/strong> High Court can interfere with quantum of punishment only after taking into consideration totality of facts and circumstances of case, such as nature and gravity of charges levelled against employee, whether proved and, if so, to what extent, entire service record, remaining tenure, etc. [Delhi Police v. Sat Narayan Kaushik, (2016) 6 SCC 303<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 S. 195 \u2014 Perjury \u2014 Unconditional apology \u2014 False statements before Company Court:<\/strong> As appellant (a company secretary) tendered unconditional apology and humbly begged to be pardoned and in affidavit before Supreme Court he stated that he never had intention to show any disrespect or dishonour to court; that alleged false statements were unintentional; that appellant would not indulge in anysuch adventures in future, in view of said apology, unconditional apology tendered by appellant accepted. Therefore, other parallel proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 and S. 21, Company Secretaries Act, 1980 would not be proper to continue and thus directed to be closed. [Dhiren Dave v. Surat Dyes, (2016) 6 SCC 253<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 S. 482 \u2014 Power of High Court under \u2014 When to be exercised: <\/strong>There was alleged forgery and misappropriation of funds re creation of a website which tried to set up a concern independent of concern that paid for the website. In criminal proceedings which constitute abuse of process of court, Supreme Court held that as allegations inherently improbable and no sufficient ground to proceed further, evident from complaint itself, prosecution quashed. [Ramesh Rajagopal v. Devi Polymers (P) Ltd., (2016) 6 SCC 310<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 154, 156(1) & (3) and 36 \u2014 Non-registration of FIR or improper investigation by police \u2014 Remedy in matters of:<\/strong> Remedy in such matters does not lie before High Court under Art. 226 of Constitution but before Magistrate concerned under S. 156(3) CrPC. If on an application under S. 156(3) CrPC, Magistrate is prima facie satisfied, he can: (i) direct registration of FIR, (ii) if FIR has already been registered, issue a direction for proper investigation to be made, which includes, if he deems it necessary, recommending change of investigating officer, and can also (iii) monitor the investigation. [Sudhir Bhaskarrao Tambe v. Hemant Yashwant Dhage, (2016) 6 SCC 277<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 \u2014 Ss. 156(3) and 154 \u2014 Power of Magistrate under S. 156(3) CrPC to direct police to register an FIR before commencing investigation in a matter:<\/strong> To enable police to start investigation in a matter, Magistrate can direct police to register an FIR in that case. Even where a Magistrate does not do so in explicit words but directs or investigation under S. 156(3) CrPC, the police should register an FIR. [Hemant Yashwant Dhage v. State of Maharashtra, (2016) 6 SCC 273<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Debt, Debt Recovery and Relief \u2014 Sale of debtor\u2019s property:<\/strong> As auction-sale of property of defaulter conducted pursuant to decree (of Rs 92,94,183) obtained by Bank to recover loan amount but Court was not satisfied about adequacy of the price, grant of opportunity to defaulter subsequent to such auction-sale to pay the complete outstanding dues of the Bank in instalments, before auction-sale had been confirmed, and as there was large shortfall between highest bid and total dues. [D. Nageswar Rao v. SBI, (2016) 6 SCC 279<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Election \u2014 Corrupt Practices\/Electoral Offences \u2014 Bribery \u2014 Whether pleading in election petition in present case disclosed cause of action:<\/strong> In this case where pleading about corrupt practice, more particularly about violation of directions\/instructions of Election Commissioner of India [in Para 7(B) of election petition] included that returned candidate used vehicles without permission of Returning Officer and campaigned after closure of electioneering, bribed and influenced voters and when this was objected to by some voters and police was informed, only a station diary entry was made instead of an FIR, High Court held that Para 7(B) even if proved would not be sufficient to establish corrupt practice as detailed particulars about the time, place and persons to whom bribe of cash and gift of other articles were given and the amount of cash and the nature of articles given by way of gifts have not been pleaded, High Court view on Para 7(B), reversed and held that material particulars had been given in Para 7(B) which disclosed cause of action. Hence only said para, forming the part of the election petition is ordered to be restored. Further held that so far as rest of the paras are concerned the High Court was right while striking them off. [Jagabandhu Behera v. Subrat Tarai, (2016) 6 SCC 256<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Estoppel, Acquiescence and Waiver \u2014 Estoppel \u2014 Applicability of: <\/strong>As award of contract of ghat in question by way of public auction and persons who participated in bid including the highest bidder, were not interested in taking said contract, consequently, appellant Society, which neither participated in auction nor submitted its bid, given an offer to have the ghat settled in its favour on payment of Rs 16,00,000 i.e. the highest bid received and acceptance of bid by Society but under protest, hence subsequent challenge to bid amount by Society, not justified. [Alauli Anchal Boat Traffic Coop. Society Ltd. v. State of Bihar, (2016) 6 SCC 296<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 \u2014 S. 13(1): <\/strong>To constitute an offence under S. 13(1), goods in relation to gold, silver, precious stones or foreign currency have to be brought from abroad to India. As goods brought by appellant were not such goods, conviction under S. 13(1)(a) of accused, cannot be sustained. [V. Varadarajan v. CCE, (2016) 6 SCC 264<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Government Grants, Largesse, Public Property and Premises \u2014 Eligibility criteria:<\/strong> School leaving certificate issued by a higher secondary school although not in list of documents mentioned as proof of age, held, cannot be rejected. It is relevant that even a mere affidavit as proof of age was acceptable as per list of mentioned documents. Requirements as per Cl. 2(c) of eligibility criteria are as follows: attested copy of either matriculation or secondary school leaving certificate indicating date of birth or identity card issued by Election Commission or PAN card or passport or an affidavit as proof of age. Held, school leaving certificate, as the very expression indicates, is issued by the school since the pupil leaves the school. The requirement of the Corporation is only a proof regarding the age. No doubt, certain documents are specified in the eligibility criteria which would be accepted by the Corporation as proof of age. In case a copy of the secondary school leaving certificate can be accepted as proof of age, it does not even strike to common sense as to why the copy of the higher secondary school leaving certificate, duly attested, cannot be accepted. [Hina v. Union of India, (2016) 6 SCC 293<\/a>]\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 (11 of 1959) \u2014 S. 30(5) \u2014 Powers of Registrar of Cooperative Societies under \u2014 Scope of:<\/strong> Registrar is bound to supersede Managing Committee of cooperative bank when a written requisition is made by Reserve Bank of India in relation thereto. [RBI v. N. Venkateshaiah, (2016) 6 SCC 266<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Labour Law \u2014 Labour Court\/Industrial Tribunal \u2014 Jurisdiction \u2014 Cause of action \u2014 Situs of employment \u2014 Relevance:<\/strong> As appellant was employed by respondent Company in Aurangabad, transferred to Pondicherry, and consequent upon decision to close down unit at Pondicherry by Company in Aurangabad, his services terminated. held, both Labour Courts at Pondicherry and Aurangabad would have jurisdiction to decide appellant\u2019s case viz. Labour Court at Pondicherry since appellant\u2019s services were terminated there and Labour Court at Aurangabad because decision to terminate him was taken at Aurangabad and thus, part of cause of action had arisen there. [Nandram v. Garware Polyster Ltd., (2016) 6 SCC 290<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 \u2014 S. 23 \u2014 Compensation \u2014 Comparable instances \u2014 Enhancement of compensation:<\/strong> In this case, big chunk of land admeasuring approximately 270 bighas and 15 biswas was acquired in three different villages, for establishment of a power house by S. 4 Noti. on 3-6-1987 and since for land abutting subject-matter of present appeals forming part of one chunk of land, a sum of Rs 32,951 per bigha had been awarded by High Court in Ram Kishan<\/em>, 2004 SCC OnLine Del 155 decided on 4-3-2004, same amount of compensation awarded to present appellants in respect of their acquired land and statutory benefits to be awarded to appellants. [N.D. Sharma v. Union of India, (2016) 6 SCC 281<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (1 of 1972) \u2014 Ss. 30, 32 and Sch. IV \u2014 \u201cAppropriate Government\u201d:<\/strong> In this case where complaint was filed against respondent HAL for reinstatement of trainees with continuity of service and back wages, \u201cappropriate Government\u201d in relation to respondent Company is the State Government and not Central Government as erroneously found by Division Bench in impugned judgment. Hence, matter remitted to High Court for reconsideration afresh since Division Bench had not dwelt on merits of case but only decided appeal on grounds of maintainability. [Nashik Workers Union v. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., (2016) 6 SCC 224<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 \u2014 Ss. 17-A(2), 2, 10, 18:<\/strong> While State Government retains ownership of minerals in land owned by it, by virtue of S. 2, Parliament controls regulation and development thereof. For reservation of any area by State Government even in land owned by it (coastal stretches in State of Kerala in this case i.e. land owned by State Government) for mining operation in accordance with its policy (State Industrial Policy, 2007), Central Government\u2019s approval and issuance of notification in Official Gazette in terms of S. 17-A(2) is mandatory. In absence of compliance with these essential conditions, there can be no valid reservation under S. 17-A(2). Industrial Policy adopted by State of Kerala of undertaking mining operation only through government company or corporation thus has no statutory status and it also runs contrary to National Mining Policy, 2008. State\u2019s general executive power also cannot be invoked to make reservation of area, dehors requirements of S. 17-A of MMDR Act. [State of Kerala v. Kerala Rare Earth & Minerals Ltd., (2016) 6 SCC 323<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Penal Code, 1860 \u2014 Ss. 397\/34 and Ss. 302, 390\/392\/457 r\/w S. 34 \u2014 Relevant offence(s) not included in charges framed:<\/strong> In this case, Respondent-accused, committed robbery in the house of N <\/em>and committed murder of N <\/em>and after investigation charge-sheet under Ss. 120-B\/302\/380\/394 and Ss. 397 r\/w S. 34 IPC was laid against respondents, Trial court framed charges under Ss. 120-B\/302\/390\/392\/457 r\/w S. 34 IPC, two respondents were convicted under Ss. 390\/392\/457 r\/w S. 34 and third respondent additionally convicted under S. 302 but High Court found fault with trial court in omitting to frame charge under S. 397 against respondents and remitted matter to trial court to frame charge under S. 397 against respondent accused and to undertake a fresh consideration of materials on record and to record additional evidence if required It was held by Supreme Court that though S. 397 having regard to case of prosecution, may not be wholly irrelevant, charges framed against respondents by trial court, do adequately encompass all essential facts building up offences imputed against them, hence, impugned decision set aside. Criminal appeals filed by respondents before High Court restored, for disposal afresh in accordance with law. [Bharamappa Gogi v. Praveen Murthy, (2016) 6 SCC 268<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Rent Control and Eviction \u2014 Eviction of licensee \u2014 Recovery of compensation with interest \u2014 Fraud on court to thwart execution:<\/strong> As execution proceedings for recovery of arrears of compensation from licensee by attachment and sale of licensee\u2019s property, initiated by licensor after eviction and delivery of possession but the said execution proceedings opposed by licensee (R-1) by setting up an MoU and an unregistered agreement with her daughter (R-2) indicating that licensee had sold her property to her unmarried daughter who would look after and maintain her mother even after her marriage It was held that MoU and agreement were a sham, set up by licensee in collusion with her daughter to defeat and frustrate execution proceedings, hence, licensor entitled to carry out execution. [Kusum Harilal Soni v. Chandrika Nandlal Mehta, (2016) 6 SCC 317<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Sales Tax and VAT \u2014 Concession\/Exemption\/Incentive\/Rebate \u2014 AY 1995-1996 \u2014 Exemption Noti. No. S.O. 89\/CA.74\/56\/S.8\/95 dt. 4-9-1995 issued under S. 8(5) of CST Act r\/w R. 28-A(4)(c) of 1975 Rules issued by Haryana State Government:<\/strong> As per Notification dt. 4-9-1995, no sales tax is payable w.e.f. 1-4-1988 on sale of goods during period of exemption that are manufactured in State of Haryana by any dealer who holds a valid exemption certificate under R. 28-A of the Rules. When r\/w R. 28-A(4)(c) this exemption is extended to all successive stages of sale and purchase in intra-State trade or commerce i.e. within the State of Haryana. Such sales may be one or successive and tax at all stages is exempt. That is to say cumulative effect of notification r\/w R. 28-A(4)(c) is that it extends the benefit granted under R. 28-A(2)(n)(ii) which relates to inter-State trade or commerce to intra-State sale or purchase. The exemption, therefore, is goods specific, subject of course to other conditions being satisfied. Hence, third parties selling exempted goods in course of inter-State sales entitled to exemption under said notification r\/w R. 28-A(4)(c), if all other requirements therefor are satisfied. [Casio India Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2016) 6 SCC 209<\/a>]<\/p>\n

Service Law \u2014 Reservation \u2014 Prejudice to general merit category candidates, if any, caused by new reservation policy:<\/strong> In this case new reservation policy was made applicable even to competitive examination already held for selection to gazetted posts for which results not announced and selection made pursuant to such examination, held that no prejudice would be caused to general merit category candidates, by new reservation policy. [Mirza Ali Raza v. State of Bihar, (2016) 6 SCC 283<\/a>]<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Ss. 148 and 151 \u2014 Discretion of court to extend time for doing any act prescribed\/allowed by <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"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":[],"class_list":["post-57051","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casesreported","category-supremecourtcases"],"yoast_head":"\n2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 7, 2016 Part 2 | 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\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 7, 2016 Part 2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Ss. 148 and 151 \u2014 Discretion of court to extend time for doing any act prescribed\/allowed by\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/\" \/>\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=\"2016-07-18T07:19:04+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-09-13T07:05:23+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=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Sucheta\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 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\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/\",\"name\":\"2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 7, 2016 Part 2 | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2016-07-18T07:19:04+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-09-13T07:05:23+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/#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\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 7, 2016 Part 2\"}]},{\"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa\",\"name\":\"Sucheta\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Sucheta\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 7, 2016 Part 2 | 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\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 7, 2016 Part 2","og_description":"Civil Procedure Code, 1908 \u2014 Ss. 148 and 151 \u2014 Discretion of court to extend time for doing any act prescribed\/allowed by","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2016-07-18T07:19:04+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-09-13T07:05:23+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":"Sucheta","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Sucheta","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/","name":"2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 7, 2016 Part 2 | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/01\/scccover-28.1.jpg","datePublished":"2016-07-18T07:19:04+00:00","dateModified":"2016-09-13T07:05:23+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/#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\/2016\/07\/18\/2016-scc-vol-6-july-7-2016-part-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"2016 SCC Vol. 6 July 7, 2016 Part 2"}]},{"@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\/7416b8c43cd3a0a3412cf97fc17b54fa","name":"Sucheta","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/530d4c250404c869212316d6351878b83f86bf27648031b1e6d4857a4bae4b88?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Sucheta"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/legal_editor\/"}]}},"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":254098,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/09\/13\/section-148-a-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":57051,"position":0},"title":"Whether Section 148-A CPC applies to writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution","author":"Editor","date":"September 13, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Dormaan Jamshid Dalal*","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\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-119.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-119.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-119.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-119.png?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/09\/MicrosoftTeams-image-119.png?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":330596,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/11\/muslim-wife-filed-divorce-under-dissolution-of-muslim-marriage-act-entitled-to-receive-interim-maintenance-under-s-151-cpc\/","url_meta":{"origin":57051,"position":1},"title":"Can Muslim wife claim interim maintenance under S.151 CPC while seeking divorce under Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act? Madras HC answers","author":"Apoorva","date":"September 11, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cSince the legislature cannot contemplate a solution to all the problems that are presented in Society. Within the broad framework that is laid down by the legislature, Courts will have to find a solution to the individual cases.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"madras high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/08\/madras-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":242899,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/01\/28\/adhering-to-statutory-timelines-a-step-towards-better-case-management-of-civil-trials\/","url_meta":{"origin":57051,"position":2},"title":"Adhering to Statutory Timelines: A Step Towards Better Case Management of Civil Trials","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 28, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"by Hasit B. Seth\u2020 Cite as: 2021 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 6","rel":"","context":"In "'Lex Mercatoria' by Hasit Seth"","block_context":{"text":"'Lex Mercatoria' by Hasit Seth","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/experts_corner\/individual\/lex-mercatoria-by-hasit-seth\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/hasit_b._seth_3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/hasit_b._seth_3.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/hasit_b._seth_3.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/hasit_b._seth_3.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/01\/hasit_b._seth_3.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":198244,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/07\/consolidation-of-suits-may-be-directed-under-section-151-cpc-even-in-matters-that-are-not-entirely-similar\/","url_meta":{"origin":57051,"position":3},"title":"Consolidation of suits may be directed under Section 151 CPC even in matters that are not entirely similar","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 7, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Soumen Sen, J. allowed an application filed under Clause 13 of Letters Patent Act, 1865 for transfer of suit from City Civil Court to the High Court. The applicant filed a suit in the High Court under Section 6 of Specific\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\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/06\/calcutta-court.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":375603,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/02\/13\/s-151-cpc-applies-to-clerical-error-not-merit-based-issues-ker-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":57051,"position":4},"title":"Sections 151 and 152 CPC applies only to clerical or arithmetical error, not merit-based determinations: Kerala HC","author":"Sunaina","date":"February 13, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cClerical mistakes are those that occur in the course of typing or writing, while arithmetical mistakes are those that occur during calculation. As to accidental slip or omission, the decisive test is whether it is apparent from the record that the Court intended to do something but failed to do\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Section 151 CPC applies to clerical error","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Section-151-CPC-applies-to-clerical-error.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Section-151-CPC-applies-to-clerical-error.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Section-151-CPC-applies-to-clerical-error.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Section-151-CPC-applies-to-clerical-error.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":267027,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/18\/application-under-s-151-of-cpc-maintainable-despite-the-fact-that-order-allowing-the-application-under-or-7-r-11-of-cpc-is-appealable\/","url_meta":{"origin":57051,"position":5},"title":"MP HC | Application under S. 151 of CPC maintainable despite the fact that order allowing the application under Or. 7 R. 11 of CPC is appealable; Trial Court directed to restore civil suit","author":"Editor","date":"May 18, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court: Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J. allowed a civil revision under Section 115 of CPC against the order rejecting application filed under Section 151 of CPC holding that the same was not maintainable. Order sheet of the trial Court showed that respondent 2 was not present when 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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57051","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\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=57051"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/57051\/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=57051"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=57051"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=57051"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}