LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. Show all posts
Saturday, March 17, 2012

without framing substantial question of law , no second appeal is to be decided. in a specific performance suit, when a lower court order for refund of the earnest money, the appellant court set aside the lower court decree and order for specific performance of the sale agreement. which was reversed by the High court in a second appeal with out framing any substantial question of law- which was set aside by the apex court by this judgement and further strongly retreated that no court should go liberally interfering the appellant court judgement in second appeal with out framing a substantial question of law.

›
                                                         REPORTABLE               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA                 CI...
Thursday, February 9, 2012

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950: Articles 226 and 227 - High Court in writ jurisdiction setting aside orders of trial and revisional courts whereby they had rejected defendant's application under Or.8 r.10 CPC for extending time to file written statement =HELD: Jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226 and 227 is limited - It could have set aside the orders only on the ground of illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety - Trial court had assigned sufficient and cogent reasons in support of its orders - High Court erred in setting aside the orders without assigning any reason therefor - Judgment of High Court set aside - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 8, r.10. R.N. Jadi & Brothers and Ors. Vs. Subhashchandra (2007) 6 SCC 420 and M. Srinivasa Prasad & Ors. Vs. The Comptroller & Auditor General of India & Ors. 2007 (5) SCALE 171, relied on. Kailash Vs. Nanhku and Ors. (2005) 4 SCC 480, referred to. Case Law Reference: (2005) 4 SCC 480 referred to para 11 2007 (5) SCALE 171 relied on para 13 (2007) 6 SCC 420 relied on para 13 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7209 of 2008. From the final Judgment and Order dated 20.9.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 45197 of 2007. R.S. Hegde, Chandra Prakash and P.P. Singh for the Appellant. M.P. Shorawala, Jyoti Saxena, Vipin K. Saxena and T.N. Saxena for the Respondents.

›
, , , 2009(1 )SCALE71 , REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ...
Friday, January 20, 2012

scope of or.23,rule 3 A of C.P.C.= whether the suit filed by the appellant was not maintainable being barred in terms of Order XXIII Rule 3-A of the Code of Civil Procedure= It is also well settled that under section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code, the civil court has inherent jurisdiction to try all types of civil disputes unless its jurisdiction is barred expressly or by necessary implication, by any statutory provision and conferred on any other tribunal or authority. We find nothing in Order XXIII Rule 3-A to bar the institution of a suit before the civil court even in regard to decrees or orders passed in suits and/or proceedings under different statutes before a court, tribunal or authority of limited and restricted jurisdiction.

›
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. ...
Wednesday, January 18, 2012

jurisdiction of a court under an agreement confined one court is valid ?=whether, if two Courts have jurisdiction to entertain a Suit, whether the parties may by mutual agreement exclude the jurisdiction of one of the Courts, having regard to the =”Thus it is now a settled principle that where there may be two or more competent Courts which can entertain a suit consequent upon a part of the cause of action having arisen therewithin, if the parties to the contract agreed to vest jurisdiction in one such Court to try the dispute which might arise as between themselves, the agreement would be valid. If such a contract is clear, unambiguous and explicit and not vague, it is not hit by Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act and cannot also be understood as parties contracting against the statute.”

›
1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ...