Courts cannot impose unlimited costs in civil proceedings #indianlaws

Feb
20
2017


Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the matter of Bikramjit Ahluwalia Vs. Avnija Ahluwalia FAO(OS) 173/2016 held that there is no question of exercising of inherent powers contrary to the specific provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under Section 35A CPC, which deals with vexatious litigation and exemplary costs, the outer limit has been fixed. The Courts cannot enforce cost beyond what is prescribed in Section 35A.




Custody of minor child to be determined by the welfare of the minor #indianlaws

Feb
19
2017


The Supreme Court in the matter titled as Vivek Singh Vs. Romani Singh, Civil Appeal no. 3962/2016 decided on 13th February, 2017 was determining the issue of custody of a minor child. The Court reiterated the old principle that welfare of the minor child is the first and paramount consideration and in order to determine child custody, the jurisdiction exercised by the Court rests on its own inherent equality powers where the Court acts as 'Parens Patriae'.




Industrial lease deed to be renewed as per the terms of lease #indianlaws

Feb
19
2017


The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Orissa Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation Vs. MESCO Kalinga Steel Limited; Civil Appeal no. 2545/2017, decided on 14th February, 2017 held that renewal of lease is a privilege and if a tenant wishes to claim the privilege, he must do so strictly within the time limited for the purpose. Where however, there is no time limit, an application may be made within a reasonable time.




Rebutting the presumption against accused in Section 138, N I Act #indianlaws

Feb
13
2017


Delhi High Court in the matter of Mukesh Kumar Vs. State Crl. L P 555/2017 decided on 2nd Feburary, 2017 held the fact that the cheque has been signed by the accused is not denied by the accused, itself raises a presumption against the accused under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque had been issued in respect of an outstanding debt or for consideration.  The presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act is a rebuttable presumption, and the standard of proof required to rebut the said presumption is on preponderance of probabilities.




What is "sufficient cause" in terms of order 37 Rule 4 CPC #indianlaws

Feb
13
2017


Bombay High Court in the matter titled as Purnendu Shekhar Mal Jain Vs. ACG Associated Capsules Private Limited in Appeal (L) no. 98 of 2016 decided on 1st Feb, 2017 held that the words "special circumstances" in Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC for setting aside ex-parte decree is different from expression "sufficent cause" an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC. The expression "special circumstances" is not defined in the Civil Procedure Code nor is it capable of any precise definition by the court because problems of human beings are so varied and complex.




What is "Permanent disability" in Motor Accident cases #indianlaws

Feb
13
2017


Supreme Court in the matter of Sandeep Khanuja Vs. Atul Dande; Civil Appeal no. 1329/2017 decided on 2nd Feb, 2017 held that the crucial factor which has to be taken into consideration, in a motor accident case, is to assess as to whether the permanent disability has any adverse effect on the earning capacity of the injured.




Courts can consider subsequent events in adjudication of disputes #indianlaws

Feb
13
2017


The Supreme Court in the matter of Nidhi Vs Ram Kirpal Sharma Civil Appeal no. 1008 of 2017 decided on 2nd Feb, 2017 that ordinarily, rights of the parties stand crystallized on the date of institution of the suit. However, the court has power to take note of the subsequent events and mould the relief accordingly.



Tags: 

Defamation in Civil Courts-An analysis #indianlaws

Feb
13
2017


Defamation may be committed two ways viz; (i)speech, or ii) by writing and equivalent modes. The English common law describes the former as Slander and the latter as Libel. The claim of slander and libel are private legal remedies, the object of which is to vindicate the claimant’s reputation.



Tags: 

A co-owner can maintain suit for eviction without impleading other co-owners

Feb
11
2017


Delhi High Court in the matter titled as  Ram Niwas Singh Vs. Rajendra Singh, RSA 25/2017 decided on 20.01.2017, held that co-owners to a property can file a suit for eviction of a tenant in the property. It was also re-emphasized that there is hardly any distinction between a suit for eviction and recovery of possession against a tenant after determination of tenancy, which determination only a co-owner is allowed to do and thereafter, maintain a suit for eviction of such tenant.




Remedies under Consumer Protection Act are in addition of other provisions for addressing grievances

Feb
11
2017


NCDRC in the matter titled as Western Railway Vs Vinod Sharma First appeal no. 451/2015 decided on 18th January, 2017 has held notwithstanding provisions of Railways Act, 1989 and availability of Railways Claims Tribunal Act 1987, consumer Courts will have the power to adjudicate upon the consumer issues with regard to Railway passengers. It was observed that Consumer Protection Act is a special legislation, enacted to provide better protection for the interest of the consumers in diverse areas.








© 2010-15