Legal Reference Library

In cases where it is clear that the case is one of “ accidental slip or omission”, it is the duty of the court to correct the decree in tune with the actual intend of the Court and the parties. The Kerala High Court in Chandran Vs. Amruthavally viewed that there is no reason to restrict the scope of Section 152 of the Code of CPC to ‘ accidental slip or omission’ of the Court and its ministerial staff alone. Justice Sathish Ninan observed that there is nothing to indicate that the applicability of the Section is confined to cases of slip or omission by Court. It definitely takes within its compass the ‘accidental slip or omission’ of the parties also. “Essentially the question would be whether it was an instance of ‘ accidental slip or omission’. When the Court is satisfied that the mistake or error was accidental, powers vested in the Court under Section 152 of the CPC needs to be invoked to correct mistakes in the decree, especially in a case like the present one, where parties to th...

The Supreme Court in M. S. KAZI VS. MUSLIM EDUCATION SOCIETY has held that all Tribunals are not necessary parties in a Special Civil Applications under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, when they are not required to defend its orders when they are challenged before the High Court. Three Judge Bench comprising of Chief Justice of India T S Thakur, Justices A M Khanwilkar and Dr D Y Chandrachud made this observation while setting aside Gujarat High Court judgment which had dismissed Letters Patent Appeal against a Single Bench order for the reason that the Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Tribunal was not impleaded in the Special Civil Application. The Court observed: “The lis is between the management and a member of its teaching or non-teaching staff, as the case may be. It is for the person aggrieved to pursue his or her remedies before the tribunal. An order of the tribunal is capable of being tested in exercise of the power of judicial review under Articles 226 and 227. W...

The Supreme Court in RISHABH CHAND JAIN & ANOTHER VS. GINESH CHANDRA JAIN has held that an order dismissing the suit on the ground of Res Judicata does not cease to be a decree on account of a procedural irregularity of non-framing an issue. Apex Court bench comprising of Justices Kurian Joseph and R.F. Nariman held that, such orders cannot be assailed in Revision, but only by preferring Appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the instant case, the Trial court, allowing an Interlocutory Application filed by defendant, in a pending suit, for dismissal of the suit on the ground that the same is barred by Res Judicata and that there is no cause of action,  dismissed the suit. The Plaintiff assailed this order in revision before the High Court contending that no appeal is maintainable against this order. The High Court observed that issue should have been framed on maintainability and the same should have been tried, and thereafter only, the suit could have been ...

Kerala High Court has declared that an Arbitral Tribunal cannot pass an order to enforce its order by directing the Advocate Commissioner/Receiver to repossess the vehicle from the opposite party. Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque observed that enforcement can be only through a civil court. Some vehicle owners who had availed loan from financiers had approached the High Court complaining that the interim order of repossession passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is enforced/being attempted to be enforced without putting the orders for enforcement, following the procedures under the Code of Civil Procedure. The Tribunal had ordered appointment of an Advocate Commissioner/Receiver to repossess the vehicle either directly or with the assistance of police. Power of High Court to directly interfere with Arbitral Award/Interim Orders of Tribunal Justice Musaque has first considered the question whether High Court can interfere with Arbitral Award/Interim Orders of Tribunal and answered it as follows; T...

The Supreme Court of India in Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1996 SC 1042 : (1996) 1 SCC 667 : JT 1995 (9) SC 165 : 1995 (7) SCALE 272 : 1996 (1) ALD(Cri) 72 : (1996) 2 CALLT 12 (SC) : 1996 CriLJ 1368 : (1996) 2 GLR 598 : [1995] Supp 6 SCR 556 held that the court granting anticipatory bail should not substitute itself for the original Court and the duration of the bail order should also be limited. A bench comprising of A.M. Ahmadi, C.J.I., S.C. Sen and K.S. Paripoornan, JJ. observed that ordinarily the regular Court which is to deal with that particular offence cannot be by passed. # Anticipatory Bail Order The petitioner filed an application in the High Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and secured an ad-interim anticipatory bail order which was to enure upto 26.9.1995. The High Court imposed certain conditions, one of which was that he will report at the Police Station every day till 25.9.1995. When the matter came up on t...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Or. 8 R. 6-A, Or. 2 R. 2 and S. 2(2) — Order of dismissal of counterclaim when constitutes decree: Counterclaim when conclusively adjudicated on merits and dismissed by order of court, finality is attached in respect of rights of defendant, such order of dismissal gets status of decree. Order of dismissal of counterclaim on ground of being barred under Or. 2 R. 2 amounts to decree. (2015) 2 SCC 682 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6862 OF 2014 [Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6757 of 2012) Rajni Rani & Anr. ... Appellants Versus Khairati Lal & Ors. ...Respondents October 14, 2014