COMPENSATION as remedy in WRIT

by
What is State? "ARTICLE 12 OF THE CONSTITUTION"

31…. The precious right guaranteed by Article 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be denied to convicts, undertrials or other prisoners in custody, except according to procedure established by law. There is a great responsibility on the police or prison authorities to ensure that the citizen in its custody is not deprived of his right to life.

32. The citizen complaining of the infringement of the indefeasible right under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be told that for the established violation of the fundamental right to life, he cannot get any relief under the public law by the courts exercising writ jurisdiction. The primary source of the public law proceedings stems from the prerogative writs and the courts have, therefore, to evolve ‘new tools’ to give relief in public law by moulding it according to the situation with a view to preserve and protect the Rule of Law.

L. CHANDRA KUMAR vs. UNION OF INDIA

by
NILABATI BEHERA vs. STATE OF ORISSA

The present case concerns part XIV-A of the constitution the said part was appended with 42nd amendment of the Constitution in 1976. It includes two provisions 323A & 323B which confers power on the legislature to ordain any law concerning the establishment administrative tribunals and other tribunals, moreover to specify the power and procedure to be adopted by such tribunal for adjudication of any dispute referred to such tribunals.

VALIDITY OF UNSTAMPED ARBITRATION AGREEMENT

by
BHAVEN CONSTRUCTION vs. EXECUTIVE ENGINEERING, SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LTD. AND ANOTHER.

“Whether the statutory bar contained in Section 35 of the Stamp Act, 1899 applicable to instruments chargeable to stamp duty under Section 3 read with the Schedule to the Act, would also render the arbitration agreement contained in such an instrument, which is not chargeable to payment of stamp duty, as being non-existent, unenforceable, or invalid, pending payment of stamp duty on the substantive contract/instrument?”  

RES SUB JUDICE – SECTION 10 CPC

by
EXCEPTION OF RES JUDICATA

The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject-matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 are “the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue” in the previous instituted suit. The words “directly and substantially in issue” are used in contradistinction to the words “incidentally or collaterally in issue”. Therefore, Section 10 would apply only if there is identity of the matter in issue in both the suits, meaning thereby, that the whole of the subject-matter in both the proceedings is identical.

RUDUL SAH v/s STATE OF BIHAR AND ANOTHER

by
NILABATI BEHERA vs. STATE OF ORISSA

The question for our consideration is whether in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 32, this Court can pass an order for the payment of money if such an order is in the nature of compensation consequential upon the deprivation of a fundamental right?

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11CPC – SHOULD BE DECIDED FIRST

by
EXCEPTION OF RES JUDICATA

An application under order 7 rule 11 under CPC is filed by the defendant in a suit for the dismissal of the suit. Order 7 rule 11 also envisage the grounds for the dismissal of the suit. The one who is filing such application before court has burden of proof to establish and substantiate such ground for dismissal.

REJECTION OF PLAINT- REMEDY

by
EXCEPTION OF RES JUDICATA

The present blog will emphasise a very captivating issue concerning the remedy in case of rejection of plaint or dismissal of application. Filing advocates often make mistakes when availing the remedy against the order of the court adjudicating the application under order 7 rule 11. What will be the remedy to the aggrieved party whose plaint has been rejected under order 7 rule 11? What remedy is available in case where an application under order 7 rule 11 is dismissed? Whether an aggrieved party can file a revision petition under Article 227 of the constitution of India? Whether the writ maintainable against the order of rejection of the plaint?

SRIHARI HANUMANDAS TOTALA v/s HEMANT VITHAL KAMAT and OTHERS (Rejection of plaint and Res judicata)

by
SRIHARI HANUMANDAS TOTALA v/s HEMANT VITHAL KAMAT and OTHERS .

The following issues were framed by the trial court: (in 2007 suit)

“1. Whether the description of suit property is correct?

2. Whether plaintiff proves that he has purchased suit property and he acquired valid title as pleaded?

3. Whether plaintiff is entitled for possession of suit property?

4. Whether Defendant 2 proves that KSFC had no authority to put the suit property     for sale?

5. Whether Defendant 2 proves that there is no cause of action for the suit?

6. Whether plaintiff is entitled for decree?

7. What decree or order.”?

error: Content is protected !!