Legal Reference Library

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in SHRI RAWATPURA SARKAR LOK KALYAN TRUST Vs SHRI SHRINAGARDHAM UDASEEN ASHRAM NIJI NYAS SIRSAWAN CHITRAKOOT has held that re-cross examination of the witnesses under Order 18 and Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code after evidence is closed is permissible in a civil suit. The trial court had dismissed the application of the petitioner for re-cross examination of the witness  after evidence is closed on ground that the petitioner could not file the application under Order 18 and Rule 17 of the CPC to re-cross examine the witnesses as the power to recall the witnesses for the same is vested only with it.

One of the possible reasons for this extremely low ranking given to our country is the failure of all parties concerned in strictly adhering to the terms of documents such as the NIT and the GTC, the Bench observed. The Supreme Court in Central Coalfields Limited & Anr vs. SLL – SML (Joint Venture Consortium) & Ors. has held that, decision taken by the employer about essentiality of a term of the Notice Inviting Tender should be respected and lawfulness of that can be questioned on very limited grounds. The Bench comprising of Justices Madan B. Lokur and R.K. Agrawal set aside a Judgment by Jharkhand High Court wherein it had set aside the rejection of the bid of SLL-SML by Central Coalfields Limited. In this case, the bid given by JVC was cancelled as the bank guarantee submitted was not in the format given in the NIT read with the GTC. The Court observed: “whether a term of the NIT is essential or not is a decision taken by the employer which should be respected. Even if the ...

Vijayander Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (2014) 3 SCC 389  Criminal Law  Criminal Procedure Code, 1973  S. 482 - Quashment - Criminal as well as civil liability - A given set of facts may make out a civil wrong as also a criminal offence and only because a civil remedy may also be available to informant/ complainant that itself cannot be a ground to quash a criminal proceeding - Real test is whether allegations in complaint disclose a criminal offence or not, (2014) 3 SCC 389-A    Criminal Law  Criminal Procedure Code, 1973  S. 482 - Quashment - Informant firm was to receive a sum of Rs 47,28,115.80 from appellants - Appellants through a demand draft for Rs 10 lakhs and returned cotton yarn worth Rs 13,26,560 settled the dues in part and for the remaining dues they persuaded the informant to accept four post-dated cheques issued by new Director SS - When informant presented cheque for a sum of Rs 5 lakhs through his bank, said cheque was di...

Judicial orders of civil court are not amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226. All courts in the jurisdiction of a High Court are subordinate to it and subject to its control and supervision under Article 227 – Writ jurisdiction is constitutionally conferred on all High Courts – Broad principles of writ jurisdiction followed in England are applicable to India and a writ of certiorari lies against patently erroneous or without jurisdiction orders of Tribunals or authorities or courts other than judicial courts – There are no precedents in India for High Courts to issue writs to subordinate courts. Page of REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2548 OF 2009 RADHEY SHYAM & ANR. ...APPELLANTS VERSUS CHHABI NATH & ORS. .RESPONDENTS WITH SLP (C) NO.25828 OF 2013 JAGDISH PRASAD .PETITIONER VERSUS IQBAL KAUR & ORS. .RESPONDENTS J U D G M E N T ADARSH KUMAR GOEL J. 1. This matter has been placed before th...