Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Counsel for the appellant argued that allegations in the FIR do not constitute any offence. If any averment made in the written statement or the affidavit filed before the Civil Court is incorrect or false, it is for the Civil Court to decide the same.
Forcing the parties to file a written statement or to complete the pleadings during the process of mediation will prevent the parties in freely communicating with each other, which they have not been able to do since the dispute started.
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.
If the power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way.
The Supreme Court was dealing with a matter pertaining to the genuineness of a registered Will executed by the testator in favour of his brother’s daughter without any mention of his widow or daughter.
“No tribunal, far less a civil court, in exercise of judicial power ought to play ducks and drakes with the rights of the parties.”
The Calcutta High Court noted that the amendment did not change the suit’s nature fundamentally and would not cause undue prejudice to the petitioner.
The Calcutta High Court highlighted the importance of adhering to the legislative intent behind Rule 6A of Order 8 CPC to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and ensure speedy trial.
The Calcutta High Court observed that “conduct of the defendant is also to be looked into” and accepted the written statement of the defendant.
Referring to the amended portion of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 with Supreme Court’s interpretation, Kerala High Court found the Commercial Court’s refusal for acceptance after delay in filing written statement beyond 120 days justified.
Supreme Court: On the question as to whether Order II Rule 2 CPC can be made applicable to an application for amendment
Andhra Pradesh High Court: Ninala Surya, J., decided to not interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the civil writ petition. The
Kerala High Court: V.G.Arun, J., held that no amendment can be allowed in written statement where it seeks to change former admissions.
Madras High Court: Dr G. Jayachandran, J., refused to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff who relied on general admission
Karnataka High Court: Krishna S. Dixit J. set aside the impugned order and allowed the petition. The facts of the case are
Delhi High Court: Pratibha M. Singh, J., dismissed a petition filed against the order of the trial court whereby it had rejected the
Bombay High Court: S.J. Kathawalla, J., addressed the review petition against its own Judgment passed in the case of Axis Bank Ltd.
Delhi High Court: Chander Shekhar, J. dismissed a criminal revision petition filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby he refused
Delhi High Court: Vinod Goel, J. dismissed a petition impugning the order passed by Civil Judge whereby defendant’s application under Order 7 Rule 11
Bombay High Court at Goa: C.V. Bhadang, J., condoned a delay of 50 days in filing the written statement. As per facts