Trace Your Case

Categories
Definitions under code of civil procedure, 1908

Carew and Co. Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 1975 SC 2260

ISSUE:

Whether “undertaking” under the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 (“MRTP Act”), includes enterprises that are not engaged in the production, supply, distribution or control of goods or provision of some service?

Whether the acquisition of 100% of a company’s shares amounts to the acquisition of an undertaking owned by the company?

RULE:

An enterprise can be characterized as an “undertaking” under the MRTP Act only when it is engaged in the production, supply, distribution or control of goods or provision of service.

By purchasing 100% of the shares of a company, one acquires control over and rights to manage the company. This does not amount to the acquisition of an undertaking owned by the company, as the same cannot be equated with the purchase of the company itself.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Appeals

Madan Naik v. Hansubala Devi AIR 1983 SC 676

ISSUE:

Whether an appeal abated under Order 22 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), precludes a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC?

Whether the dismissal of a second appeal as incompetent impacts the validity of an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(k) of the CPC?

RULE:

Under Order 22 Rule 9 of the CPC, an appeal abates automatically if legal representatives are not substituted within the prescribed time, unless sufficient cause is shown for the delay.

Order 43 Rule 1(k) of the CPC allows an appeal against an order refusing to set aside abatement.

As per Section 2(2) of the CPC, a decree must involve a conclusive adjudication on the merits of the case. Abatement does not amount to such adjudication.

Under Section 100 of the CPC, a second appeal is maintainable only against a decree passed in appeal by a subordinate court.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Judgement, Decree, Costs

Shankar Balwant Lokhande v. Chandrakant Shankar Lokhande AIR 1995 SC 1211

ISSUE:

Whether the limitation for filing an application to engross the final decree on stamped paper begins when the direction for the final decree is given or when it is engrossed on the stamped paper?

Whether a final decree can be considered executed and binding when no Commissioner is appointed to partition the property by metes and bounds in accordance with the preliminary decree?

RULE:

Under Order 20 Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), in cases of partition of immovable property, the court must first pass a preliminary decree declaring the rights of the parties and the shares they hold, followed by a final decree specifying the division by metes and bounds.

Under Order 20 Rule 7 of the CPC, a decree must bear the date of the judgment, and the judge must ensure the decree is in accordance with the judgment before signing it.

Section 2(2) of the CPC defines a “decree” as final when it conclusively determines the rights of the parties.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Res sub-judice, res judicata, caveat, and restitution

Daryao v. State of U.P. AIR 1961 SC 1457

ISSUE:

Whether a writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable after the dismissal of a similar petition by a High Court under Article 226?

RULE:

Decisions by competent courts are final unless overturned on appeal, and repetitive petitions on the same issue are barred by res judicata under Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

According to the rule of res judicata, if a case has been dismissed on merits by the High Court, then the same cannot be brought before the Supreme Court by way of a subsequent petitioner under Article 32.

However, if a petition under Article 226 is dismissed not on merits but on account of delay or availability of an alternate remedy, there is no bar to filing a subsequent petition under Article 32.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Res sub-judice, res judicata, caveat, and restitution

Manohar Lal Chopra v. Seth Hiralal AIR 1962 SC 527

ISSUE:

Whether a court can issue interim injunction in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), when specific provisions exist for the same?

RULE:

The provisions of the CPC neither limit nor control the inherent powers of the court under Section 151.

However, where an express provision is made for a particular situation within the CPC, a departure from the same cannot be allowed.

Courts cannot exercise their inherent powers under Section 151 of CPC to order an injunction when a specific provision under Order XXXIX to grant interim injunction is enshrined in the CPC.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Jurisdiction

Official Trustee v. Sachindra Nath Chatterjee AIR 1969 SC 823

ISSUE:

Whether the settlor could modify the terms of the original trust deed using a deed during his lifetime when the deed specified modifications only through a will?

Whether to have jurisdiction, the court having some relation to the subject-matter of the suit is sufficient?

RULE:

A settlor can only vary the terms of a trust if expressly allowed by the trust deed and if the deed specifies the method of variation, the settlor must comply with that condition.

The jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882, is limited.

In order to have jurisdiction, a court must have authority not only over the subject matter of the suit but also to hear and decide the specific questions at issue, and to hear and decide the controversy between the parties.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Jurisdiction

Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340

ISSUE:

Whether undervaluation or overvaluation of a suit can affect a court’s jurisdiction and render its decision null and void?

Whether a decree passed by a court lacking jurisdiction due to valuation errors can be set aside when no actual prejudice is caused to the parties?

Whether technical jurisdictional objections related to valuation can override the principles of substantive justice?

RULE:

A decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and can be challenged at any stage, including in collateral proceedings.

Under Section 11 of the Suit Valuation Act, decrees should only be invalidated when actual prejudice is caused to the parties due to jurisdictional errors.

Jurisdictional objections must not compromise substantive justice; technicalities should not override equitable outcomes unless they affect the fairness of the decision.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Jurisdiction

Premier Automobiles Ltd. v. Kamlekar Shantaram Wadke AIR 1975 SC 2238

ISSUE:

Whether disputes arising between an employer and employee covered under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“ID Act”), can be taken to civil courts?

Whether civil courts have jurisdiction to entertain suits when a remedy is available under the ID Act?

RULE:

The ID Act provides a complete mechanism for resolving disputes between employers and employees.

Civil courts do not have jurisdiction over matters explicitly covered by a specialized statute unless the statute explicitly or implicitly permits it.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Jurisdiction

Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1969 SC 78

ISSUE:

Whether a civil court has the jurisdiction to decide matters when a special law provides an alternate mechanism for resolving disputes?

Whether the remedies under a special statute, such as tax disputes under a tax law, bar civil courts from hearing related cases?

Whether sales tax collected under a statute imposing discriminatory taxes on inter-state trade is unconstitutional and refundable through a civil suit?

RULE:

Civil court jurisdiction is excluded if a statute expressly bars it and provides adequate remedies, except when statutory provisions are violated or remedies are inadequate.

Taxes violating constitutional provisions, such as Article 301 (freedom of trade and commerce) and not saved under Article 304(a) (equal taxation for inter-state and local goods), are unconstitutional and can be challenged.

Refund suits are maintainable where no statutory mechanism exists for refunding illegally collected taxes.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now
Categories
Jurisdiction

Patel Roadways Ltd. v. Prasad Trading Co. AIR 1992 SC 1514

ISSUE:

Whether the jurisdiction of a court can be excluded through an agreement if the court already has jurisdiction under Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”)?

Whether the principal place of business or the subordinate office of a corporation determines jurisdiction for disputes related to a cause of action?

RULE:

A suit may be instituted in a court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, carries on business, or works for gain, or the cause of action wholly or partly arises.

For corporations, jurisdiction lies at their principal office or at the subordinate office if the cause of action arises there.

Parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that does not inherently have it.

However, where multiple courts have jurisdiction, parties may agree to limit jurisdiction to one of those courts.

Subscribe to Read More.
Login Join Now