Civil Jurisdiction - The Legal Chamber

Delayed Counter-Claim for Specific Performance Dismissed by Supreme Court

1Nov

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Delayed Counter-Claim for Specific Performance Dismissed by Supreme Court

This Supreme Court judgment clarifies that a counter-claim under Order VIII Rule 6A of the CPC must be filed against the plaintiff, not solely against a co-defendant. Furthermore, while no specific time limit is prescribed, a counter-claim cannot be permitted after the framing of issues in the suit, as it defeats the purpose of speedy justice and procedural efficiency. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Rajul Manoj Shah, filed a suit in 2012 concerning a bungalow she jointly owned with her sister-in-law (defendant no.1). She sought a declaration that her sister-in-law had no right to transfer the property and to nullify an Agreement to Sell dated 21.10.2011 executed in favor of respondent no.1, Kiranbhai Patel (defendant no.2). After the sister-in-law passed away in ...

Supreme Court’s Key Ruling :Notional Income of an Engineering Student Should Be Higher

The Supreme Court modified the contributory negligence apportionment to 20% on the claimant, 50% on the car driver, and 30% on the bus driver. It enhanced compensation by revising the notional income calculation for an engineering student and reinstated attendant charges, emphasizing just compensation for 100% disability. Facts Of The Case: On January 7, 2017, the appellant, a 20-year-old engineering student, was riding a motorcycle with a friend on the pillion. A car ahead, driven by respondent no. 2, suddenly applied its brakes on the highway because the driver's pregnant wife felt a vomiting sensation. This caused the appellant to collide with the rear of the car and fall onto the road. Subsequently, a bus, insured by respondent no. 1, which was coming from behind, ran over the appell...

Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Senior Advocate Designation: Transparency vs. Discretion

The Supreme Court upheld the validity of Rule 6(9) of the High Court of Orissa (Designation of Senior Advocate) Rules, 2019, which permits the Full Court to designate advocates as Senior Advocates suo motu based on exceptional merit. The Court clarified that such designations must adhere to the principles of fairness, transparency, and objectivity, as outlined in Section 16(2) of the Advocates Act, 1961, and the guidelines in Indira Jaising v. Supreme Court of India. The judgment emphasized that the suo motu power of the Full Court is supplementary to the application-based process and does not undermine the statutory framework. The amended Rule 6(9) was upheld, ensuring alignment with constitutional principles. Facts Of The Case: The case arose from a challenge to the High Court of Oriss...