Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Supreme Court reiterated that the laws of limitation only bar the remedy and do not extinguish the right, except in cases where title is acquired by prescription.
The Court stated that, while it is important that litigants including the State, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered even- handedly; however, a little latitude is considered by the Courts when the State is the seeking condonation of delay.
by Justice (Retd.) Hemant Gupta*
Supreme Court said that AICTE itself never claimed that it was dishonestly induced to grant such approvals and that essential link is altogether missing, whereby any such criminal charge of cheating can be sustained against the accused persons.
NCLAT upheld appellant’s classification as a Financial Institution and it’s liability to pay Liquidation Costs.
Supreme Court acknowledged that in case of special law prescribing a limitation period, Section 5 of the Limitation Act would have no application.
“It is a well-settled law that while deciding the question of appointment of arbitrator, the Court shall not touch the merits of the case as it may cause prejudice to the case of the parties.”
Central Vigilance Commission Act, 2003 — S. 25 r/w FR 56 — Tenure of Director of Enforcement: Permissibility of continuation of tenure
Calcutta High Court observed that the Tribunal overlooked the direction issued by the High Court and failed to apply Rule 21 of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, which grants flexibility in securing the ends of justice.
“In the context of Section 14 of Limitation Act, 1963, what needs to be seen is whether appellant has brought on the record any evidence to show that he is prosecuting the previously instituted suit with due diligence.”
Animals, Birds and Fish — Fishing and Fisheries — Purse seine fishing (PSF), a pernicious form of fishing that harms all marine life.
The allegations against the defendant related to breach of fiduciary duty, trust and statutory duties he owed as director of YZMA.
In a suit instituted by the Hindu worshippers to secure their right to darshan and pooja of deities Virajman within the premises of the Gyanvapi Mosque Complex, the Allahabad High Court said that merely seeking right to worship Hindu deities does not change the Mosque’s character into a Temple.
Ordinarily the litigation should not be terminated by default either of the plaintiff or the defendant. The cause of justice does require that the adjudication be done on merits.
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — S. 11 — Res judicata — Applicability: Findings on issue(s) which actually fell for consideration in the
Kerala High Court perused Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and Section 7(7) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and held that the authority under the Payment of Gratuity Act cannot condone the delay in filing an appeal by entertaining an application under Limitation Act.
When a case falls under any specific provision of law, their residuary clauses cannot be resorted to and the parties cannot seek shelter under the residuary provision under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
The Court, not doubting the bona fides of the District Judge, maintained the legal position of Section 5 stating that revision order was a defective one without condoning the delay. There may be instances where the interest of justice may demand Court’s interference to avoid frustration of proceedings due to technicalities, however, in the present instance nothing restrained the District Judge from deciding Section 5 application.
by Abhijith Christopher*