Legal Reference Library

In M/S Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors, it was decided that : 31. The concept of forum conveniens fundamentally means that it is obligatory on the part of the court to see the convenience of all the parties before it. The convenience in its ambit and sweep would include the existence of more appropriate forum, expenses involved, the law relating to the lis, verification of certain facts which are necessitous for just adjudication of the controversy and such other ancillary aspects. The balance of convenience is also to be taken note of. Be it noted, the Apex Court has clearly stated in the cases of Kusum Ingots (supra), Mosaraf Hossain Khan (supra) and Ambica Industries (supra) about the applicability of the doctrine of forum conveniens while opining that arising of a part of cause of action would entitle the High Court to entertain the writ petition as maintainable. 32. The principle of forum conveniens in its ambit and sweep encapsulates the concept ...

A two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held that previous proceedings would operate as res judicata only in respect of issues of facts and not on issues of pure questions of law when the subsequent suit or proceeding is based upon a different cause of action and in respect of different property though between the same parties. The Bench comprising of Justices Dipak Misra and Shiva Kirti Singh has held as follows; “The distinction drawn by the High Court in the impugned judgment that an erroneous determination of a pure question of law in a previous judgment will not operate as res judicata in the subsequent proceeding for different property, though between the same parties, is clearly in accord with Section 11 of the CPC. Strictly speaking, when the cause of action as well as the subject matter i.e, the property in issue in the subsequent suit are entirely different, res judicata is not attracted and the competent Court is therefore not debarred from trying the subsequent suit which ma...

A 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Econ Antri Ltd. Vs. Rom Industries Ltd. & Anr. has recently answered a reference whether for calculating the period of one month which is prescribed under Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the period has to be reckoned by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose?. While answering the reference, the Supreme Court held as under: On 13/10/2006, while granting leave in Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.211 of 2005, this Court passed the following order: “In our view, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellant in the case of Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. v. India Securities Ltd. (1999) 3 SCC 1 requires reconsideration. Orders of the Hon’ble the Chief Justice may be obtained for placing this matter before a larger Bench.” Pursuant to the above order, this appeal is placed before us. 2. Since the referral order states that the judgment of this Court in Saketh India Ltd. & Ors. v. India Securiti...

The Kerala High Court in G. Madhavan Nair v Union of India & others (W.P(c) No:30342 of 2014) has ruled that Kerala High Court cannot assume Jurisdiction, based on the mere fact  that the alleged cause of action was communicated  through website and it was accessed in Kerala. The petitioner  an eminent Scientist, who had  worked in the Department of Space from its very inception in the year 1972 and has headed the Indian Space Research Organisation [for brevity“ISRO”] as its Chairman for about half-a-dozen years had approached the High Court impugning orders passed by the respondents black listing  him from undertaking  any future Government assignment. Petitioner challenged these orders ;before the High Court Of Kerala  trying to take cue from Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India, 1950 which permitted a  High Court to issue directions,orders or writs to any Government , authority or person who resides outside the territorial jurisdicti...

Who is Necessary to Proper Party Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Razia Begum v. Anwar Begum, [1959] SCR 1111, relied on. Amon v. Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd., (1956) 1 All E.R. 273 and Dollfus Mieg et Compagnie S.A. v. Bank of England, (1950) 2 All E.R. 611, referred to. National Textile Workers’ Union, etc. v. P.R. Ramakrishnan and Ors., [1983] 1 SCR 922, distinguished. Meaning of Necessary or Proper Party Whether Court could direct plaintiff to add lessee as defendant in suit. Whether Court has discretion to direct a plaintiff, though dominus litis, to implead a person as a necessary party. The Supreme Court of India in Ramesh Hiranand Kundanmal Vs. Municipal Corporation, Greater Bombay, (1992) 2 SCC 524 : 1992 (2) SCR 1 : JT 1992 (2) SC 136 : 1992 (1) Scale 530 : 1992 (1) CCC 594 : 1992 (1) RCR 644 : 1992 (2) UJ 181 held that a party can be joined as defendant even though the plaintiff does not think that he has any cause of action against him. ...

Delhi High Court M/S Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 1 August, 2011 Author: Dipak Misra,Chief Justice * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Reserved on: 12th May, 2011 Date of decision: 1st August, 2011 1. W.P.(C) No.6570/2010 M/s. Sterling Agro Industries Ltd. ... Petitioner Through: Mr.M.P. Devnath with Mr. Manish Panda, Mr. Abhishek Anand and Mr.  Tarun Jain, Advs. Mr.Atul Nanda, Amicus Curiae. Versus Union of India & Ors. ... Respondents Through: Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Ms. Sonia Sharma and Ms.Sandeep Bajaj, Advs. for UOI. Mr.A.S. Chandhiok, ASG with Mr. Mukesh Anand with Mr. Shailesh Tiwari, Mr. Sumit Batra &  Mr.R.C.S. Bhadoria, Mr. Jayendra Advs. for R-2 & R-3. 2. W.P.(C) No.8399/2009 Jan Chetna ... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sanjay Parikh with Mr.Ritwick  Dutta and Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Advs. Versus Ministry of Environment and Forests & Ors. ... Respondents Through: Mr....