Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court observed that though the appellant contended that the net worth of the company is Rs.91 crores and is not a fly-by-night company, no physical assets or any other alternative security is provided either before the Single Judge or before the present Court.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“Even if the name of family members are not mentioned in the service book, even then they can apply for family pension to which they would be entitled, if they are qualified as per the Pension Rules.”
“Regarding immovable properties (other than agricultural lands paying land revenue) – such as buildings, plots etc. or movable properties — where the Court can conveniently and without further enquiry make the division without the assistance of any Commissioner, or where parties agree upon the manner of division, the Court will pass a composite decree comprising the preliminary decree declaring the rights of several parties and also a final decree dividing the suit properties by metes and bounds, in one judgment.”
Order XXI Rule 99, CPC is lucid that where any person other than the judgment debtor is dispossessed of immovable property by the holder of a decree for the possession of such property, he may make an application to the Court complaining of such dispossession.
“Initially a writ petition was filed before the High Court in the year 2000 which was transferred to the Tribunal in 2017 and thereafter, it came to be dismissed in 2024, we request the Tribunal to grant priority to hearing of this petition, and expect that the Tribunal shall hear and decide the same within a period of five months”
Novex Communications Private Limited sued the operators of Social- Saket and Social- Hauz Khas for unauthorized use of copyrighted sound recordings, seeking to introduce video evidence of these infringements.
‘The rule of amendment has been termed as rule of justice, equity, and good conscience which needs to be exercised in the larger interest of doing full and complete justice to parties before the Court.’
No sufficient reason was mentioned by the petitioner for the delay in filing the written statement and apparently blunt excuse was provided that the representative of the petitioner fell ill and no instructions could be issued to the Advocate.
The amendments were imperative for the proper and effective adjudication of the dispute; refusal to allow the amendment application would have caused injustice or resulted in multiple litigations; and the amendments did not constitutionally or fundamentally change the nature of the case.
The Court noted that the respondent merely seeks to summon the record, which was not in his possession but was in the possession of the petitioner, which right cannot be denied to him.
Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, empowers Courts to extend mandate of arbitral tribunals beyond the specified limitation.
The Court stated that if the amendment was not allowed it would lead to unnecessary multiplicity of litigation, as the amendments appeared to be necessary to determine the real controversy between the parties.
“In matrimonial proceedings, the convenience of the wife has to be considered than inconvenience of the husband. There are grounds to consider the request of the petitioner to transfer the petition.”
Relying on UN Krishnamurthy v. AM Krishnamurthy, the Court stated that the appellant failed to indicate willingness to perform their part of the transaction, as they neither showed nor proved the availability of sufficient funds required to make the payments per the contract
“In the light of law laid down by the Courts, change of counsel cannot be a ground to file amendment application bypassing the rigorous conditions of due diligence. In fact, to meet out any mistake, no advantage can be given to litigant due to change of counsel.”
“The nature of infringement of his legal rights, if any, which were claimed by the deceased/plaintiff, were personal to him and certainly not heritable”
“Insofar as Rule 6-D of Order VIII C.P.C., it clearly provides for “Effect of discontinuance of suit” that if in any case in which the defendant sets up a counterclaim, the suit of the plaintiff is stayed, discontinued or dismissed, the counter-claim may nevertheless be proceeded with.”
The Delhi High Court says that being a government employee, the appellant cannot be permitted to be free by merely contending that the accounts, though in his name, were being managed by the co-accused.