Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“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.
by Justice (Retd.) Hemant Gupta*
“District Registrar is duty bound to draw a distinction between the summary proceeding and the trial nature proceedings with reference to the Registration Act and the Code of Civil Procedure”
Delhi High Court held that the dismissal of the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC was warranted, emphasizing the need to focus solely on the allegations in the plaint at the preliminary stage because the issues regarding limitation and adverse possession required further evidence and examination, which could not be resolved without a full trial.
“No tribunal, far less a civil court, in exercise of judicial power ought to play ducks and drakes with the rights of the parties.”
“Where the plaint is returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, on its presentation before the appropriate Court of jurisdiction, the suit will be treated as a fresh suit, and will have to start de novo, and all proceedings before the earlier Court will be rendered a nullity.”
It is no defence to state that others have also infringing the marks/labels of the Plaintiff as the Defendant cannot seek shelter behind other infringers or potential infringers.
“The suit was instituted in 1996 and was at the fag end of the trial. The Defendant’s cross-examination was ongoing and if the proposed amendment is allowed, it will change the nature and character of the suit.”
Whilst the court is not unduly bound by the texts or Order XXXVIII Rule 1 and 2 or Order XXXVIII Rule (5) or any other provisions of CPC, the substantial principles for grant of such interim measures cannot be disregarded.
“The approach adopted by the High Court is incorrect and contrary to the well-entrenched principles of considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC.”
At this juncture, examining whether the petition filed before the NCLT can be said to be a ‘dressed-up’ petition, would necessarily require a detailed exercise to be carried out by this Court to render findings either way clearly impinging upon the exclusive jurisdiction of the NCLT in deciding such a question.
The Law Commission recommended an amendment of Section 75 CPC and insertion of new Rule 10A, 10B and 10C in Order 26 to meet its objective that there should be a special provision empowering the court to issue commissions for conducting scientific inquiries, when such an inquiry is needed for determination of any issue before the court as observed in its Fifty-Fourth Law Commission Report.
“This is a case that clamours for the exercise of judicial conscience to address the conundrum of whether an individual’s right to recover arrears in maintenance subsists even after the expiry of the period stipulated in section 125(3) CrPC.”
“Scrupulous adherence to Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 can curtail litigation like the present one, which aside from clogging the litigation also keeps the parties embroiled in litigation with a false hope of some relief.”
“The Court cannot create a deeming fiction on its own, where the statute does not do so. In the absence of any provision which deems a revocation petition under Section 64 of the Patents Act to be a suit, a Court cannot, even in the interests of expediency, so hold.”
“In certain situations, it may be expedient to leave it to the arbitrator to determine the issue as to whether stamping is insufficient, and if so, the arbitrator will take recourse to Section 33 of the Stamp Act, 1889.”
The phraseology “right to sue survive” used under Order 22 Rule 1 means right to seek relief. The general rule is that cause of action whatsoever existing in favour or against a person at the time of his death survives to or against his legal representatives.
In the case at hand, the Security was a ‘shop’, which was not owned by the surety, but by the Municipal Corporation, Lucknow.