Transfer of Property Act S.106 – Rent Act – Filing of an eviction suit under general law serves as a notice to quit to the tenant without the requirement of a separate notice under Section 106. 2007 PLRonline 0105 (SC)

Sarfaesi S. 17 – Limitation – Interim stay by High Court. [ 2022 PLRonline 0606 (SC)]

Sarfaesi S. 13(2) – Notice to legal heirs – S. 13(4) – whether personal service is necessary in addition to affixation | 2010 PLRonline 0102

Sarfaesi – Dead person – The proceeding conducted against a dead person is bad in law – LRs of borrowers/respondent not brought on record – Notice to one LR is not notice to all. (2013 PLRonline 0110 – DRAT)

Sarfaesi – Proceedings against a dead person – Bad in law. 2021 PLRonline 5302

Mentioning of the wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision in an application does not invalidate an order if the Court and/or statutory authority had the requisite jurisdiction therefore.

Judgment is a precedent for the issue of law that is raised and decided.

CrPC S. 482 –  Judicial comity and judicial discipline demands that higher courts should follow the law – High Court has passed the orders staying the investigations of the FIRs and ECIR in question in utter disregard of the said settled legal position. [PLRonline 438700]

CrPC S. 482 – Sarfaesi – Discretion has been conferred on the High Court to pass the interim orders in exceptional cases for not taking coercive steps against the accused pending the proceedings, particularly when the proceedings under the SARFAESI Act were initiated against the borrowers. [PLRonline update]

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 – Property – Dispute with regard to identity of the property – Status quo – It would be appropriate for the parties to maintain status quo with regard to their possession. [PLRonline 417502]

[SC] Motor Vehicles Act, – Composite negligence – Head on collision – Only 50% amount awarded to the claimant by the tribunal as the other vehicle was not impleaded  – High Court granted liberty to the appellants to file a separate claim for payment of the remaining amount – Set aside – Insurer liable to pay full amount and recover. [PLRonline 417503]

CPC O. 6 R. 17  read with O. 1 R. 10 – Application seeking impleadment of subsequent purchaser, as well as incorporating the necessary averments in the plaint – May not be a necessary party but cannot be said that the presence of the purchaser in the suit proceedings would be improper also. (PLRonline ID 46513)

Subscribe
Subscribe

Tag: CPC O. 47 R. 1

CPC O. 47 R. 1 – – Application for review can be maintained on the strength of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced by it at the time the judgment or order was passed; or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of record; or for any other sufficient reason – A review application is not the means for a party to improve its case by belatedly producing material that was available with it all along.

by PLRonline
2.1k

read HERE PLRONLINE 416387 PLRONLINE 416387

CPC O. 1 R. 15, O. 6 R. 17 – Amendment – Nature of suit is sought to be changed by turning it into a suit for declaration and permanent injunction instead of the original suit for permanent injunction only – Dismissal upheld. 2022 PLRonline 8254

CPC O. 47 R. 1 – Board cannot be permitted to contend that such material was not available with it at that time and therefore, it should be allowed to now make good the lapses on its part – The levels of competence of the Board’s officers, as per its rules, would have been available with the Board even then – A review application is not the means for a party to improve its case by belatedly producing material that was available with it all along – Further, even if accepted, this contention is of no avail as the warning issued to the writ petitioner was not withdrawn before initiation of the disciplinary proceedings.

by PLRonline
2.1k

read HERE PLRONLINE 416387 PLRONLINE 416387

CPC O. 47 R. 1- Postulates that such ‘new and important matter or evidence’, despite exercise of due diligence by the party, could not be produced at the time of passing of the order – In effect, such ‘new or important matter or evidence’ must have been in existence even at the time of disposal of the case but it could not be produced for bonafide reasons – The said expression would not take within its ambit an order which was passed after the disposal of the case with the sole intention of invalidating the basis of such disposed.

by PLRonline
2.1k

read HERE PLRONLINE 416387 PLRONLINE 416387                                           

Category Wise Search

Supreme Court Online
PLR | SC e@Journal

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password? Sign Up

Create New Account!

Fill the forms below to register

All fields are required. Log In

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
×

Please click

Supreme Court Online is also available on Whatsapp, Telegram, Instagram, Email. Join  us here!

× Join