Niyamskanoon

Posts

Showing posts with the label Civil Procedure Code

State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, 2008

State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, 2008 Introduction Although, Chapter V of the CrPC, 1973 deals with the provisions for the "Arrest of Persons", the Code nowhere mentions any provision regarding what constitutes "arrest" or "custody". The Apex Court in this case (State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, 2008) dealt with this issue and tried to give a definite shape as to what constitutes "arrest" and "custody". Facts These appeals were made by the State of Haryana and Lalit Kumar after the Punjab & Haryana High Court made two different views through different benches over a similar issue as to whether a voluntary appearance of the accused before a magistrate for bail and granted bail immediately do constitute arrest or not. The present appeals had been raised over two different cases. In both cases, the plaintiffs applied for appointment as constable drivers under the Haryana Police. A column asking whether the applicants (plaintiffs -

Facts Appellant-Plaintiff, filed a suit through Shri Jai Prakash, a partner of the firm, for the recovery of some amount due on the respondent-defendant, based on a promissory note. The suit was filed just before the expiry of the period of limitation for the claim of payment The respondent-defendant in a written statement denied the assertions made in the plaint and also contended that the suit was incompetent as the plaintiff-appellant was not a registered firm. Thereafter the plaintiff filed an application, under Rule 17, Order VI of the Civil Code, for a grant of leave to amend the plaint that was rejected by the Trial Court , on the ground that it would introduce a new cause of action. The plaintiff wanted to mention in the plaint that the plaintiff's firm was actually dissolved prior to the institution of the suit. He asserted that it is a material fact that will enable the Court to determine the true question. A revision petition before the HC was placed by the plaintiff wh

Introduction This case is related to amendment of pleadings Rule 17 of Order VI, CPC clearly mentioned this provision of amending the plea. Under this rule, the Court may allow either party to amend or alter his pleadings at any stage of proceedings. This rule empowers the Court to allow amendment of pleadings for the purpose of determining the real question. Facts The plaintiff-Manohar Lal instituted a suit in the name of appellant-Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal, since all the business were carried in the name of appellant. The suit was filed in the Court of subordinate Judge for a recovery of the payment due to the defendant for supplying timber. The defendant contended that as the plaintiff was an unregistered firm, it is incompetent to sue. The plaintiff applied for leave to amend the plaint which had been allowed by the Court. The defendant now in a written statement made two contentions:- Manohar Lal was not the sole owner of the business but his other brothers were also the owners

Facts The plaintiff-respondent instituted a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the CPC for recovery of an amount, given by the defendant-appellant in the form of a cheque which was dishonoured by the State Bank of India, with interest. The cheque was given by the appellant as the price for procuring equipment. The defendant-appellant applied for leave to defend under Rule 2, Order XXXVII of the Code which had been granted unconditionally by the Trial Court. On a revision application by the plaintiff-respondent under S.115 of the Code , the HC interfered and held that although a triable issue arose, the defences were not bonafide. Hence the defendant-appellant would be allowed to defend only after paying the said amount to the court as security within 2 months. Against the order of HC, this appeal has been granted by special leave. Issue Whether the HC can interfere under S.115 of the Code, with the discretionary power of Additional District Judge in granting unconditional leave

Facts- A cheque for Rs 6000 given by the appellant to plaintiff was dishonoured by the Bank. A summary suit under Order XXXVII filed by the plaintiff. Defendant applied for leave to defend. Trial Judge permitted to defend but with condition of giving security. Defendant applied for review but failed. Under Article 227 of the Constitution he applied to Punjab HC to review but also failed. Then under Article 136 of the Constitution, special leave petition granted by the Supreme Court to review. Contention of Defendant Discretion conferred by Rule 3(2) is unfettered and no appeal can lie against it unless there is a grave miscarriage of justice or violation of law. The cheque was given only as a collateral security and the goods were to be paid by cash and other cheques. Issue Whether the discretion placed by Rule 3(2) of Order XXXVII, CPC is unfettered? Whether the decision of earlier Court of granting leave on condition was right or not? Ratio Decidendi Law of Procedure should be exer

This case interpretation/case summary is written by Mr. Sonu Choudhary , a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to niyamskanoon09@gmail.com Introduction This case talks about the doctrine of Constructive Res Judicata and its applicability to a Writ petition filed under Article 32 and Article 226 of the Constitution. Here the honorable Judges also try to differentiate between the general principle of Res Judicata and constructive Res Judicata which has been developed over the years and incorporated in CPC,1908 as Section 11. Facts The respondent, Nawab Hussain, was a Sub-Inspector in UP Police. He was charged for corruption under Prevention of Corruption Act and IPC. The officer in rank of DIG dismissed him. He filed a writ petition in Allahabad High Court for quashing the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the allegatio

Introduction This case will tell us ' about what constitutes substantial question of law' which is required for further appeal in the Supreme Court for civil matters as provided under Article 133(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. Fact Chunnilal Mehta and Co. were appointed as managing agent of the respondent company for a term of 21 years by an agreement. A resolution passed by the company transferred all the benefits of the agreement to the present appellant Chunnilal Mehta and sons Ltd. Before the expiry of the tenure, the board of directors of the company removed the appellant from his position. Therefore the appellant filed a civil suit in the Bombay High Court claiming Rs 50 lakhs as damages for wrongful termination of the agreement which was later decreased to Rs 28 lakhs. Issue was to how much damages had to be paid by the respondent company. By interpreting Clause 14 of the agreement, the Court held that appellant would get only Rs 2,34,000 by

Introduction This case talks about the scope of ' I nherent power ' which has been provided to the Court under Section 151 of ' Civil Procedure code 1908 ' to administer justice between parties. In this case we will know that a Court has the power to increase the time duration fixed by an earlier decision of a Court to do certain act, by exercising its inherent power under S.151, CPC. Facts Mahant Ram, the plaintiff filed a suit in the Court of Sub-ordinate Judge II, Gaya for a declaration that he had been nominated as 'Mahant of Moughal Juan Sangat' by his guru Mahant Gulab Das by a registered deed therefore he has the right to manage the Sangat and other offshoots. Case History The trial court dismissed the suit. In an appeal by the plaintiff in the High Court , the Court made decision in his favour with the condition that he has to pay the court fee for the trial court and the HC within three months (April 8, 1954-July 8, 1954) otherwise t

MANOHAR LAL v. SETH HIRALAL Case Summary (1962) INTRODUCTION This case deals with the concept of Temporary Injunction and its application. A temporary injunction is a legal remedy that restrains temporarily a party from performing certain act . As per section 94(c) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the court may grant a temporary injunction. FACTS OF THE CASE The appellant and the respondent had a partnership firm in the name of 'Diamond Industries' for working coal mines and manufacture of cement at Indore. Later, the partnership was dissolved by a deed and it was agreed that the appellant will render true accounts of the said business. The appellant was entitled to RS 1 lakh but he could get that amount only after the account of the firm had been rendered, checked and audited. The 2nd proviso of the deed also contained that all disputes and differences shall be decided amicably or in court at Indore and nowhere else. 2 months later the respondent sent a registered letter t

C.A. Balakrishnan v. Commissioner Corporation of Madras, 2003 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Mr. Sonu Choudhary , a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University) . If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . INTRODUCTION This case concerns with the applicability of the doctrine of "Constructive Res judicata" over a writ petition. Facts of the Case (C.A. Balakrishnan v. Commissioner Corporation of Madras, 2003) The petitioner was a 'lessee' of a canteen premises, which was originally obtained by one 'Seetharama Udupi' from respondent. Subsequently, petitioner's father became the lessee and after the father's petitioner was running the canteen for about 16 years, he has also received 'No objection certificate' from the district revenue officer. One day, a junior engineer of the respondent corporation without any notice or warni

Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali [AIR 1974] This case interpretation/case summary is written by Mr. Sonu Choudhary , a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . INTRODUCTION This case talks about the doctrine of Res Judicata that is mentioned in Section 11 of CPC, 1908. This doctrine of Res Judicata means the matter which has been previously adjudicated should not be tried before the Court. SECTION 11- RES JUDICATA NO COURT SHALL TRY ANY SUIT OR ISSUE IN WHICH MATTER IN ISSUE DIRECTLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY A MATTER IN ISSUE IN A PRVIOUS SUIT BETWEEN SAME PARTIES OR, BETWEEN PARTIES UNDER WHOM THEY OR ANY OF THEM CLAIM, LITIGATING UNDER THE SAME TITLE IN A COURT COMPETENT TO TRY SUCH SUBSEQUENT SUIT OR THE SUIT IN WHICH THE ISSUE RAISED SUBSEQUENTLY AND HAS BEEN HEARD AND FINALLY DECIDED BY THE COURT. FACTS The appellants are legal representatives of Is

Section 10, CPC

10. Stay of suit. —No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same or any other Court in 1[India] have jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed, or in any Court beyond the limits of 1[India] established or continued by 2[the Central Government 3***.] and having like jurisdiction, or before 4[the Supreme Court]. Explanation.—The pendency of a suit in a foreign Court does not preclude the Courts in 1[India] from trying a suit founded on the same cause of action. INGREDIENTS- No court shall proceed Trial of any suit matter in issue is directly and substantially the same issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties. litigating under the same title where such suit is pending in the same court or in any other cour

Introduction This case is related to the Doctrine of Sub Judice or section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Relevant Section Section 10, Civil Procedure Code 1908 Facts Respondent (Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd.) applies to the appellant bank to open an irrevocable letter of credit for a sum of 3,78,90,000 /- in favor of 'Shankar Rice Mill'. Under the request, the Bank opened an irrevocable letter of credit. It is agreed that the documents drawn under the said letter of credit when tendered to the appellant bank were to be forwarded to the federation for their acceptance thereafter the bank had to make payment to 'Shankar Rice Mill' on behalf of the federation. The bank filed a summary suit in the Bombay High Court under Order 37 of the code against the federation for obtaining a decree, stating that said amount has become revocable. The Federation/Respondent Contention Before filing a summary suit, there was already i

Gundaji Satwaji Shinde v. Ram Chandra Bhikaji Joshi, AIR 1979 Case study||Case Summary INTRODUCTION THIS CASE IS MAINLY CONCERNED WITH THE JURISDICTION OF A CIVIL COURT IN A SUIT IN WHICH AN INCIDENTAL OR SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE ARISES WHICH HAS TO BE DEALT BY ANOTHER LEGISLATION. FACTS The plaintiff (appellant), G.S.Shinde, filed a suit before the Trial Court for the specific performance of a contract. The contract was executed by parties for the sale of agricultural land to the plaintiff by the defendant(R.C.B.Joshi) for a consideration of Rs42000 out of which Rs 5000 was paid as earnest money. Later, a sum of Rs5000 was also paid and the duration for the performance of the contract was extended by 6 months. Later the defendant denied to sell the land, therefore this suit had been raised. Defendant Contention The disputed land was covered by Bombay Tenancy Act, 1948 and it has to be sold only to an agriculturist within the meaning of S.63 of the said Act. As the agreement was contrary to

Search This Blog

Niyamskanoon

Posts

Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

State of Haryana v. Dinesh Kumar, 2008

M/s Ganesh Trading Co. v. Moji Ram AIR 1978 SC 484

Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Bldg. Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267

M/s. Mechalec Engrs. & Manufacturers v. M/s. Basic Equipment Corn. AIR 1977 SC 577

Santosh Kumar v. Bhai Mool Singh Air 1958

STATE OF UP v. NAWAB HUSSAIN, AIR 1977

Chunilal V. Mehta v. Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., AIR 1962

Mahant Ram Dass v. Mahant Ganga Dass, AIR 1961

MANOHAR LAL CHOPRA v. RAI BAHADUR RAO RAJA SETH HIRALAL (1962)

C.A. Balakrishnan v. Commissioner Corporation of Madras, AIR 2003

IFTIKHAR AHMED v. SYED MEHARBAN ALI, 1974

Section 10, CPC

Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Cooperative Marketing Federation Ltd, AIR 1998

Gundaji Satwaji Shinde v. Ram Chandra Bhikaji Joshi, AIR 1979