Evasion of Court Proceedings : HC Explains the Legal Effect

Staying Away From Court Proceedings : HC Explains the Legal Effect

An important judgment was passed on 13 May 2014. 

It has been commented in Jockey International Ltd v R Chandra Mohan [2014] GCtR 3157 (Delhi) thus : - 

 "A defendants, who chooses to stay away from the proceedings of the Court, should not be permitted to enjoy the benefits of evasion of court proceedings. Any view to the contrary would result in a situation where a defendants who appears in Court and submits its account books would be liable for damages, while another defendants who, chooses to stay away from court proceedings would escape the liability on account of failure of the availability of account books. A party who chooses not to participate in court proceedings and stays away must, thus, suffer the consequences of damages as stated and set out by the plaintiffs. There is a larger public purpose involved to discourage such parties from indulging in such acts of deception and, thus, even if the same has a punitive element, it must be granted."

This proposition would be useful if somebody is interested in using it in suitable cases against public sector banks of India.

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. 

Additional Evidence in Litigations : The Legal Issue

Additional Evidence in Litigations : The Legal Issue 

An important Judgment was passed on 27 May 2015 in CR 6626 of 2013.

It has been held in Rani v Raksha Rani [2015] GCtR 3155 (P&H) that additional evidence cannot be allowed to be used as a handle or tool by a party to fill up the lacuna in his evidence particularly when rights of the parties have been adjudicated and the defendant is already in appeal before the first Appellate Court. 

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. 

Property Case : Defendants Restrained From Further Construction on 27 April 2023

Property Case :  Defendants Restrained From Further Construction on 27 April 2023 

In a recent judgment dated 27 April 2023, the appeal was allowed and application for temporary injunction under Order 39 was allowed. 

The Facts were that an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC as filed by the plaintiffs/appellants was dismissed with no order as to costs by the Trial Court. Appeal was filed. Plaintiffs had exclusive of land in question.

Property 

The plaintiffs pleaded that A and B, sons of C were owners in possession of property detailed and described in para no. 1 of the plaint, situated within the revenue estate of a village. It was alleged that defendants are shrewd and cunning type sperson and they want to grab the property of the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs further submitted that B died issue-less on 01.11.1987 and his brother A died prior to him. Thereafter, the property in question was succeeded in the name of D,E,F and G in equal shares, being the sons of A. On 23.10.1986, a family settlement took place among D,E,F and G regarding the property in question, which was divided among them, whereby, G relinquished his share in favour of E in lieu of his share comprised in Haveli to the extent of 1/4th share. 

Findings in Appeal 

In this case, it is an admitted fact that initially, the plot measuring  was owned by sons of A.

This alleged sale by way of agreement or by way of sale deed is not at all prima-facie proved on the file. Therefore, at the most, legal heirs of G can get ¼ share in the suit property, where they have constructed their house, shown in Purple colour, as per the site plan placed on record by one of the defendants. Therefore, a prima-facie case was made out in favour of appellants and balance of convenience also lies in their favour. In case, it was held that if the defendants/respondents are not restrained from causing interference or stopping the construction of the boundary walls, the appellants would suffer irreparable loss/injury. 

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.  

Order 15A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : HC Explains the Legal Position

Order 15A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 : HC Explains the Legal Position

In Pyara Lal Taheem v Mohan Murti Shandilya [2013] GCtR 3120 (Delhi) it has been commented thus : - 

Order 15A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ", being a Delhi amendment, is unambiguous in its terms that where a Defendant who is required to deposit rent as per the directions of Court, fails to do so his defence is liable to be struck off. It gives statutory expression to the law earlier explained in several decisions."

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.