Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Adopting a sensitive approach is crucial for the Tribunal. It plays a key and vital role in ensuring not only justice to the victim of the motor accident but also to determine just and fair compensation”
“It is true that no case might have been made out for review, and thereby, the time of the Civil Court must have been consumed to decide such an application, but at the same time, the right available to the party cannot be taken away by the Court, as all concerned, including the Court, are governed by the law.”
“Consideration to condone can be made only if there is a reasonable explanation and the condonation cannot be merely because the appellant is a Government body where procedural and bureaucratic delays are well known.”
The absence of any explanation or defense from the convict, coupled with the surrounding circumstances that pointed to his culpability, led the Supreme Court to conclude that the only plausible inference was that the convict had participated in the commission of the crime.
APTEL said that the sufficient cause to be shown by an applicant, for the delay to be condoned, would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, it would not be justified to apply a uniform criterion to determine whether the cause shown is sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
Entry 31 of Schedule of Fees prescribed by the NCLT Rules stipulates that the fee for obtaining true certified copies of final orders passed to parties other than the concerned parties under Rule 50 shall be Rs 5 per page. The stipulation of Rupees five per page in Entry 31 excludes “the concerned parties under Rule 50”.
The power conferred in the High Court under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, is a residuary power and to be exercised only when no alternative remedy is available.
The doors of justice cannot selectively be shut to a few and not to others, particularly where the life and liberty of the accused is at stake.
Under Section 21 of NIA Act, appeals are filed against Special Court’s order and thus in view of the powers that are conferred on the Court of Session for exercising the jurisdiction of the Special Court, orders passed by the Court of Session under Section 22(3) shall also be appealable under Section 21.
This will not mean that the appellant cannot prefer a fresh appeal to the commercial court, Visakhapatnam or such Court which has the jurisdiction.
The victim’s family alleged that was in police custody for nine days but after being released on bail, he had died of renal failure.
‘The contention that the appeal is not maintainable under Section 100 of CPC cannot be accepted, rather the appeal filed by appellant is maintainable before the Court as the order of Additional District Judge is a decree.
The Court reiterated that the court cannot open its own order on merits specifically in the light of the bar as contained under Section 362 of CrPC.
In the instant appeal, the Court had to consider the interplay of Sections 9 and 37 of the A&C Act; Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Rule 9 of High Court of Karnataka Arbitration (Proceedings before the Courts) Rules, 2001.
Rajasthan High Court held that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC do not extend to interfering with orders of the District Collector acting under Section 6-A of the RBA Act in a quasi-judicial capacity.
The appellant filed an objection before the Executing Court to delete their name from the execution proceeding and to insert the name of Executive Engineer PWD, NH Division as Judgment debtor but the Executing Court disposed of objection on the ground that matter was already decided.
Orissa High Court held that the court’s intervention is limited and emphasised on the autonomy of the arbitral process and the finality of the arbitral award.
“The reassessment notice was issued by ITO, Ward 69(1), New Delhi, under Section 148 and lacked jurisdiction as the jurisdiction was with ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon. Hence, the subsequent assessment completed by ITO, Ward 4(1), Gurgaon, based on this notice was legally flawed.”
“The Statehas miserably failed to show any patent illegality warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. Mere allegation would not suffice until and unless it stands substantiated from the pleading and the records.”
There are substantive differences between review and appeal. A decision’s cryptic nature alone does not warrant a review.