Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Calcutta High Court emphasised on the doctrine of “kompetenz-kompetenz”, granting the Arbitral Tribunal the authority to rule on its own jurisdiction, including the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement.
Calcutta High Court allowed the present revision petition and quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners on ground of abuse of the legal process.
The Division Bench said that the Single Judge ought to have appreciated the appellants' possession and the question of title could not have been examined.
“If this is allowed to happen, every judgment-debtor who is in possession of the immoveable property till the decree is passed, shall hand over possession to a third party to defeat the decree-holder's right and entitlement to enjoy the fruits of litigation and this may continue indefinitely and no decree for immovable property can be executed.”
The Court stated that the “claim of the respondents ought to have been tested by the Tribunal and the High Court in the proper perspective to see whether it is an attempt to get the best of both the worlds.”
Supreme Court said that if the alternative plea introduced by plaintiff through an amendment is one which the defendant set up in his written statement, although inconsistent with the original plea, the Court is not precluded from allowing the amendment if it does not prejudice the defendant.
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Dwarka Dhish Bansal, J. allowed a civil revision under Section 115 of CPC against the order rejecting application
Gujarat High Court: Ashokkumar C. Joshi, J. dismissed a petition and emphasised the importance of proper reasoning in a judgment/order. Petitioners were
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., explained the concept of proving a Will by an attesting witness. The chamber appeal was preferred
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai*, JJ has lucidly explained the law on rejection of plaints under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC
Supreme Court: The bench of L. Nageswara Rao and BR Gavai, JJ has, in two judgments, has held that where the plaintiff’s
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J., while rejecting the present petition, upheld the decision of the trial court as the
Chhattisgarh High Court: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J., while addressing a petition made an observation with regard to matrimonial disputes that, “…in a
Orissa High Court: The Bench of A.K. Rath, J. dismissed the petition filed against the order which rejected the application of the
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Petitioner filed before the bench of Gurvinder Singh Gill, J., an application for grant of anticipatory bail
Supreme Court: Considering the sad state of affairs of long drawn expensive and cumbersome trials to resolve disputes between two Government owned