Tag: Article 227

Supreme Court: Person Not Made Party in Case Can Challenge Order That Harms Him
27Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court: Person Not Made Party in Case Can Challenge Order That Harms Him

This Supreme Court held that the bar against intra-court appeals under the Allahabad High Court Rules must yield to natural justice. Where a Single Judge's order prejudices a non-party, that person can appeal with leave. The Court reaffirmed that procedural rules cannot thwart the right to a remedy (ubi jus, ibi remedium) for affected persons. Facts Of The Case: A fair price shop license granted to Respondent No. 1 was revoked by the licensing authority for breaching its terms and conditions. Pursuant to this revocation, the license was allotted to the Appellant, Abhishek Gupta. Respondent No. 1 challenged the revocation order and its appellate affirmation before the Allahabad High Court by filing a writ petition. Critically, the Appellant, who was the current allottee of the shop ...
Read More
Key Ruling on Vakalatnama & “No Instructions”: Supreme Court Clarifies Lawyer-Client Procedure in Civil Cases
4Feb By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Key Ruling on Vakalatnama & “No Instructions”: Supreme Court Clarifies Lawyer-Client Procedure in Civil Cases

The Supreme Court clarified that a counsel’s “no instruction” pursis does not equate to withdrawal of vakalatnama under the Advocates Act or Civil Manual. Absent a formal withdrawal, the court is not obligated to issue fresh notice; a litigant’s failure to instruct counsel cannot invalidate proceedings. The High Court’s interference under Article 227 was deemed unwarranted. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Shri Digant, filed a civil suit in 2014 against the respondents, M/s. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors., for possession under the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. The defendants were initially served summons, and after they failed to appear, the suit proceeded ex parte. Upon applications, these ex parte orders were later recalled, and the defendants filed written statements. Duri...
Read More
Supreme Court Clarifies: Licensee Must Pay Arrears, Not Liquidated Damages, at Interim Stage
4Dec By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: Licensee Must Pay Arrears, Not Liquidated Damages, at Interim Stage

In a suit for eviction under a lapsed license agreement, the Supreme Court ruled that the trial court cannot grant liquidated damages as an interim measure under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC. However, it upheld the application of Order XV-A CPC (Bombay Amendment), directing the licensee to pay ascertained arrears and ongoing license fees with annual increments, failing which the defense can be struck off. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from a Leave and License Agreement executed on 08.10.2013 between the appellant licensors and the respondent licensee for 36 months, from 01.11.2013 to 31.10.2016, with a 7% annual increase in license fee. Clause 19 stipulated liquidated damages of Rs. 10,000 per day if the licensee failed to vacate upon expiry. After the license period lapsed, ...
Read More
Supreme Court Revives Cheque Bounce Cases, Says ‘Sick Company’ Status is Not a Get-Out-of-Jail Card
9Oct By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Revives Cheque Bounce Cases, Says ‘Sick Company’ Status is Not a Get-Out-of-Jail Card

The Supreme Court held that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not automatically barred against a company declared sick under SICA, even if a restraint order under Section 22A exists. The nature of the restraint and the purpose of the cheque issuance are mixed questions of law and fact to be decided during trial based on evidence. Furthermore, a Magistrate lacks the inherent power to review or recall the issuance of summons. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Shree Nagani Silk Mills Pvt. Ltd., supplied goods to the first respondent, L.D. Industries Ltd., which was declared a sick company by the BIFR. Towards the payment for these supplies, the accused company issued several cheques in 2001, which were subsequently dishonoured due to "insufficient funds"....
Read More
Supreme Court Rules :Landowners Can’t Get Uniform Compensation for Power Lines
20Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules :Landowners Can’t Get Uniform Compensation for Power Lines

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment for failing to properly assess compensation under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. It emphasized that compensation must be determined based on location-specific evidence and remanded the cases. The Court also highlighted the absence of a statutory appeal mechanism against orders of the District Judge and referred the issue to the Law Commission for examination. Facts Of The Case: A power transmission project titled "400 KV Jhajjar Power Transmission System-PPP-1" was initiated by HVPNL in Haryana. Jhajjar KT Transco Private Limited (JKTPL) was awarded the project, which sub-contracted the erection work to Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. The 100 km-long transmission line passed through land in four districts, including Sonepat and Jha...
Read More
Supreme Court Quashes Decree Against Odisha Corp, Clarifies Law on Interest for Pre-1992 Transactions
5Sep By The Legal ChamberNo Comments
Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Decree Against Odisha Corp, Clarifies Law on Interest for Pre-1992 Transactions

The Supreme Court held that the suit against the State Financial Corporation was not maintainable due to non-compliance with the mandatory notice under Section 80 CPC. The decree was declared a nullity as it erroneously applied the Interest on Delayed Payments Act, 1993, to a pre-enactment transaction and fastened liability without privity of contract. Execution proceedings were quashed. Facts Of The Case: In 1985, Respondent No. 1, M/s. Vigyan Chemical Industries, supplied raw materials to Respondent No. 2, an industrial unit. Due to a loan default, the Appellant, Odisha State Financial Corporation (OSFC), took possession of Respondent No. 2's unit in 1987 under the State Financial Corporations Act, 1951. In 1988, Respondent No. 1 filed a recovery suit for its unpaid dues. OSFC was impl...
Read More