Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“A person who is single marrying another whose marriage is subsisting is not liable under Section 494 IPC, but the person whose marriage is subsisting would be liable.”
There is a difference between entertainability and maintainability of a writ petition. Powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be exercised in restricted circumstances and within well-defined parameters, even if there exists an alternate remedy.
‘It is no longer res integra that to determine an application under Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, it is only averments made in the plaint that can be considered.’
‘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.
Any third party claiming an interest in the domain name, without being bound by the INDRP, cannot allege that the award has been rendered in violation of principles of natural justice.
Alipore Bar Association being not a state “other authority” or “agency or instrumentality” of the state within Article 12 and “authority or person” discharging public function within the meaning of Article 226, writ against Alipore Bar Association that too in the matter of election to the Bar Association is not maintainable.
Rajasthan High Court decided to entertain the appeal due to the significant question of the application’s maintainability.
The interpretation of the term other authority has evolved over a period of time where the judicial dictum, at various instances has decided for inclusion or exclusion of various authorities under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.
Calcutta High Court referred the appeal to the bench with jurisdiction over first appeals from orders under Order 43(1)(a) passed by a regular court of civil jurisdiction, not by a special or commercial court.
Calcutta High Court observed that the Tribunal overlooked the direction issued by the High Court and failed to apply Rule 21 of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, which grants flexibility in securing the ends of justice.
“Lawyers, as a whole, belong to a separate homogenous group called ‘Gentlemen’. However, it is unfortunate that the said homogeneous community is trying to use this Court to create a casteist atmosphere which is highly deprecated”
There was inconsistency in between the pleadings of the plaintiff about cause of action and the averments made in the petition were not part of the plaint averment.
Calcutta High Court emphasizing that attorney-client communication is privileged and held that “Section 126 of the Evidence Act is designed to abort the attempt to intrude privacy of the close preserve of the fund of information conveyed by the client closeted in confidence.”
Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a writ cannot be issued against a Government- entity which has been subsequently privatized and no longer performs any public duty.
The Court pointed out that ‘woman’ as per S. 498-A, IPC means and includes a legally wedded wife.
The Supreme Court called the matter at hand a classic case in which a litigant had been able to mislead the Courts and authorities at different levels to put life into his stale claim.
As there is no provision in the RERA Act giving authority to the RERA Tribunal to deal with the subject matter of the suit, the jurisdiction of this Court cannot be said to be barred in the situation where the plaintiff requested for canceling the allotment.
Madras High Court concurred with the view of Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy, that the petition, though maintainable cannot be entertained after remand, and in this case, it can certainly not be entertained.
SAT Mumbai observed that it is not open to a shareholder to complain about the scheme of arrangement before the SEBI or to the Stock Exchange nor is it open to the shareholder to make a representation and /or file an appeal before this Tribunal under Section 15T of the SEBI Act.
ORERA reiterated that the projects which are completed and for which the completion certificate has been issued by the local or competent authority prior to the commencement of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016, are not covered under the Act and therefore, has no application to such projects.