Counter Affidavit/Order 39/PC Act/Advocate Fees Etc

Counter Affidavit/Order 39/PC Act/Advocate Fees Etc

It is completely fallacious to say that the writ petitions cannot be allowed without calling for filing of the counter affidavit. This proposition finds ample support from the case citation [2022] GCtR 1795.

There is full justification to direct the opposite party to pay the actual expenses of Advocates that has to borne by the litigant which wins the case which is clear from case citation [2019] GCtR 3081 that when a party wins the case then the said party has to be paid the actual amount of fees spent on its Advocate by the opposite party. 

The principle that clearly emerges from case citation [2019] GCtR 3079 is that merely because a person is accused of committing offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 would not mean that he shall never be given anticipatory bail. Even in cases where allegations involves offences under PC Act, 1988, anticipatory bail can be granted to the accused person. 

The Principle : What can be inferred from case citation [2019] GCtR 3080 is that even if the application under Order 39 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 had been rejected by the Trial Court, even then HC has the power to direct maintenance of status quo for a particular time.

Written by 

Vishal

Delhi

Notice : Copyright of above blog and its content including headline vests with Vishal. Above should Not be reproduced in any form in newspapers/websites/Ph.D. thesis/College projects/ law firms' newsletters/law journals/books/book chapters without prior written permission. Fair use should be in terms of Copyright Act, 1957. Any violation will make violator liable for Pecuniary compensation with interest towards the author irrespective of the profit made. All disputes shall be subject to Delhi Jurisdiction. Reproduction of judgment or publication of judgment unless expressly prohibited by Court according is not an infringement of copyright according to S. 52 (1)(q)(iv) of Copyright Act, 1957.