“Entitled to file a suit under Order 33 provided plaintiff is able to prove that he is not possessed of sufficient means to pay the requisite court fees. The question is required to be decided by holding an inquiry as prescribed under Order 33, Rules 4-7. Rule 9 empowers the Court to withdraw the permission […]Read more "Order 33, 44 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908"
Issues of Tribunals: Unresolved. 07.05.2018 Concept of Tribunals was evolved to decongest Court System. Constitutional Role of Supreme Court obstructed. If Tribunals are given Judicial Power, they must possess Independence, Security and Capacity associated with Courts. 3 Member Urgent Committee required for Issues *(I)-(II)-(III)-(IV)*. 1/3 Members: Retired Judge of Supreme Court. 16.05.2018 Retired Judge of […]Read more "Rojer Mathew, SLP (Civil) 15804/2017"
“Unlike matrimonial proceedings where strict proof of marriage is essential, in the proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, such strict standard of proof is not necessary as it is summary in nature meant to prevent vagrancy. When the parties live together as husband and wife, there is a presumption that they are legally married couple for […]Read more "Masterly Concubinage II"
” By The Specific Relief (Amendment) Act 2018, Section 14 has been amended. In the present case, we are not called upon to examine the effect of this amended provision. The issue before this Court is whether Section 14(3)(c)(iii) is a bar to a suit by a developer for specific performance of a development agreement between […]Read more "Section 14(3)(c)(iii) of The Specific Relief Act, 1963"
“In legal parlance, ‘consortium’ is a compendious term which encompasses ‘spousal consortium’, ‘parental consortium’, and ‘filial consortium’. The right to consortium would include the company, care, help, comfort, guidance, solace and affection of the deceased. With respect to a spouse, it would include sexual relations with the deceased spouse. Parental consortium is granted to the […]Read more "Consortium"
The principles for interference in exercise of review jurisdiction are well settled. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 the Court while dealing with the scope of review had opined: “A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but […]Read more "Order 47, Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908"
“It is a settled proposition of law that a decree obtained by playing fraud on the Court is a nullity and that such a decree could be challenged at any time in any proceedings. This proposition is certainly not in dispute. Learned counsel also placed reliance on Union of India v. Ramesh Gandhi, (2012) 1 […]Read more "Fraudulent Decrees"