Bold ® Pariksla Mantaan ‘empowering aspirants since 1964 WES r All Competitive Exai A’collection of important Case Laws PLOT T ATUL om BIC TTR (Cty canned with CamScaniwrt FT Parikslaa Mantian Sworing aspirants since Tena "empower Recent & Landmark CASE LAWS Contents = Contents RECENT AND "= THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ii © Features of Constitution @ Preamble @ Union aeTertitory ® Citizenship e Doctrine of “Fundamental Rights : General @ Eclipse, Severability Judicial Review @ Concepe of State NiehttoEqualty® Right to Freedoms ® Various Facts Against Exploitation © Right to Freedom of Religion® Cy Htural and Educational Rights @ Rightto Constitutional Remedies and Public Interest Fee Penciplse teat © Legislature @ Judiciary © Legislative Relations © Freeden., Emergency @ Amendment © Miscellaneous = CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE © Charge ® Trial ® Inquiis a Trial: General Prin "CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE j 3s Scanned with CamScanner0 Se a a INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT sore 66-76 © General Principles @ Relevant Fact @ Relevancy & Admissibility @ Direct & Circumstantial Evidence @ Admission & Confession @ Dying Declaration @ Eapert Evidence ® Documentary & Oral Evidence @ Presumption & Burden of Proof ® Privileged Communications ® Witnesses | INDIAN CONTRACT ACT seeesees TTBS | ‘© General Principles @ Offer® Acceptance @ Consideration @ Privity of Contract ® Capacity | toContract ® Free Consent ® Void & Voidable Contract ® Quasi Contract © Damages = INDIAN PENAL CODE © General Principles, Mens Rea ® Punishments © General Exceptions © Conspiracy @ Offences Against the State ® Common Intention and Common Object @ Offences Against Human Body @ Offences Against Property ® Offences Against Marriage @ Attempt = HINDU LAWS 3-98 © General Principles ® Conditions of Marriage, Void & Voidable Marriages @ Restitution of Conjugal Rights, Judicial Separation & Divorce @ Maintenance @ Adoption @ Guardianship © Joint Family Property & Coparcenary = MUSLIM LAWS = TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT ‘© Preliminary @ Transfer of Property by Act of Parties LAW OF TORTS svee]03-109 | © Liability of State @ False Imprisonment & Trespass | THE NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT evo 1-112 ee 3114 ™ THE SALES OF GOODS ACT = INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT seemed 1S, | THE ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT sesee 1G-HT 118-121 = LIMITATION ACT ‘© Preliminary @ Limitation of Suits, Appeals & Application © Computation of Period of, Limitation © Acquisition of Ownership by Possession ‘ : x ‘THE SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT Pariksha Manthan ' t ' Scanned with CamScannerMULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS ON CASE Laws I ‘THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA ‘CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 INDIAN CONTRACT ACT, 1872 INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 FAMILY LAWS ‘TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 JURISPRUDENCE PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW LAW OF TORTS NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENTS ACT, 1881 LABOUR LAW ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ENVIRONMENTAL LAW SALES OF GOODS ACT INDIAN PARTNERSHIP ACT HUMAN RIGHTS LAW COMPANY LAW ARBITRATION & CONCILIATION ACT, 1996 CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT. Scanned with CamScannerReset anal Lanbivrk Cie Lins THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA —— 2 Han Jawaya Kapoor v, tate of Punjab AMR V959 SC S49 2 St Honunal v, Ualon of tnella, ALK LYASE 98 Anna Koy v. Union of India, AIK 2002 9C 3176 o Hae! Wear v, Union of India, ANKAITY SC OS 15, Nakara v. Union of India, AIR.A9# SC 130 o 1. Chandra Kumar y. Union of India, AIKAYIT SC 1125 o 5.k.Bonmal v. Union of india, ASAI SC 1918, o ‘arn Jawaya Kar v, State of Panjab, AMR 1955 90 549 o ‘State of West Bengal v, Union of India, ANK.1963 C1241 o Sta: of Rajusthan v. Union of India, ‘AMHAYTT SC 1361 o Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India, AA 20 SC 4127 In Me Benshasl Unioncare, ABIDE 145 FEATURES OF CONSTIT' PREAMBLE © Binet ] ION ‘The Supreme Court determined that our ‘Constitution has adopted the syst n of Parliamentary government of England, Basic principle is thatthe President is the Constitu: ‘ional Head of the executive while the actual executive powers are vested in the Council of Ministers, Secularism isthe basi structure of the Constitution, Supreme Court held that the secularism has a positive ‘msaning and it means to develop understanding and ssspect towards different religion, Courts would give more weightage to the nationalization and state ownership but the principles of socialism should not be interpreted and implemented to the extent i totally ‘ignores the interest of private ownership. Further, Supreme Court held that the basic purpose of socialism isto provide decent standard of lfe and socal security to people. Supreme Court as held tha exclusion of jurisdiction of cours is unconstitutional, Judicial review is the basic structure of the Constitution and it can never be excluded, Supreme Court has expressed in majority opinion that Indian Constitution is federal, ‘The federal principle or doctrine of separation of power is ‘not incorporated inthe Constitution inthe strictand form. Indian Constitution is not truly federal and States are not sovereign. Political sovereignty is distributed between Union ‘and States with greater weightage in favour of the Union. ‘of progress and development of ‘nationally, politically and economi- leis dominant in our Constitution and that principle is one ofits basic features, ut, itis also equally true that federalism leans in favour of a strong centre or unitary power. ‘The Supreme Court held that the Preamble is not the part of. Scanned with CamScanner= Recent and Landinark Case Laws should be read and interpreted inthe f The cout furthered that he Probe Peay, without ateting the basic eS ne 2 Sajjan Singh v. AIR 1965 SC 845, > SR. Bommai v. Union of India, AIR 19948C 1918 ate of Rajasthan, 2 KK. Baskaran v. State of Tamil Nadu, Supreme Court held that Preamble isthe _| ofthe features of the Constitution." **4 tha ‘Supreme Cour reiterated the view held in Ke caseand held that Preambleis an integral panorin Constitution. Supreme Court held tht th Constitution sg interpreted in such manner so as to secur ce AIR 2011 SC 1485 re the economicand political justice. Boal of i 2 Nandini Sundar v. State of Chhattisgarh, Supreme Cour said that promise to provide social cy AIR 2011 SC.2839 and politcal justice given in the Preamble cannotbe fren. cor neglected. 2 Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC845 2 Amar Singh Ji v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1955 SC 504 2 InRe Berubari's case, AIR 1960SC.858 ‘2 Babulal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1960 SC 51 | 2 Maganbhai v. Union of India, AIR 1969 SC 783 > RC. Poudyal v. Union of India, AIR 1993 SC 1804 Preamble represents the quintesenc, the philosophy gp ideals, the soul or spirit ofthe entire Constitution UNION & TERRITORY ~ 5] The Supreme Court has ruled that at any given pointof time, the territory of Indi isthe area which is specified in te First Schedule under Article 1. The power of Parliament to diminish the area of Satedou ‘not cover cession of Indian territory to a foreign Sate The agreement could only be implemented by an amendmentto the Constitution under Article 368, lf the State Legislature to which the Bll has been reece, does not express its Views within the period so specified or ‘extended, the Bill may be introduced in the Parliament even though the:¥iews of the State have not been obtained bythe islature expresses its views within ‘extended the Parliaments not bound athe views of the State Legislature. be dispute to the tribunal doesnot sritory and hence amendment of 2 Pradcep jain (Drv. Union of india, AIR 1984 SC 1420 Dr. Yogesh Bharadwaj vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1991 SC 356 2 Sondur Gopal v. Sondut Raji, AIR 2013 SC.2678 ~ | Retarding domicile of choles Supreme Cour hobo Supreme Court has held that Article 5 recognizes domisle af India. Tt docs not recognize the concept of Sate domi in domicile ofc other dome | mere acquisition of ‘not sufficient. There must be clear intention taba Ldomiceoforigin.Reventand Lanalonark Ce Laws 2 Bhanwans Khan v. Union of Ida, Supreme Covet yeconnized that thoae wha had voluntarily ‘AIR 2002 SC.1614 ‘migated 1 Pakistan and borcanve citizens there, canon return tw India. They cannot claim the citizenship of fndia on the ground that they had been living in Iba fora longtime acd their names have been included in ve voter list > State Trading Corporation of tndia Ltd, Supreme Court held that company is not a citizen ¥. Commercial Tax Offices, and therefore, cannot claim Fundamental Rights which AIR 1963 SC 1811 have been conferred upon its citizens, ‘The court further clarified that the citizenship in Part Iis concerned with the natural pervons and not justi persons > Tata Engineering v. State of Bihar, twas contended by shareholders ofthe company that though AIR 1965 SC-40 the company was not the citizen but shareholders were citizens and therefore, the fundamental rights ofits share: hholders must be protected by lifting the corporate vel. The Supreme Court while rejecting the said contention held that what cannot be achieved directly cannot also be achieved indirectly. Thus, company does not receive the protection of fundamental rights through shareholders, > RC. Cooper. Union of India, Supreme Court held tha ifthe State's ation impairs the (Bunk Nationalization case tights of shareholders and well s that of company the share- [AIR 1970 SC. 564 holders willbe entitled to protection under Article 19, From j this case the Supreme Court adopted a flexible approach in | interpreting this aspect. | > Godhra Hlectricity Co. led. v, State of Gujarat, | The Supreme Court held that though a company is nota | AIR.1975 SC 32 citizen but a shareholder has aright to carry on business | through agency of company, | DOCTRINE OF ECLIPSE, SEVERABILITY, JUDICIAL REVIEW ] | ‘2 Keshav Madhav Menon v, State of Bombay, | Supreme Court observed that preConsttutional laws exists AIR 1951 SC 128 for ll past acts, ie. prior to commencement of Constitution. } 2 Bhikhajiv. State of Madhya Pradesh, Formulated the doctrine of eclipse. The court held that under AIR 1955 SC781 this doctrine the law is overshadowed by Fundamental ight 2 Saghir Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR. 1954 SC 728 that the doctrine of eclipse is only ional laws and not to post- Chand v, State of UP.(1959) 2 State of Gujarat v. Ambica Mills AIR. 1974 SC 1300 ‘Purposes. Doctrine of eclipse constitutional laws as well. 2 RMD. ¥. Union of India, “The Supreme Court elaborately discussed the doctrine of AIR 1957 SC 628 severability and held that when afet removing the invalid Portion what remains is a complete code then there is no necessity to declare the whole Act void. is applicable to post: riksha Manthan Scanned with CamScanner2 Recent and Landmark Case Les ‘Naresh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 19678C1 ‘Rj Prasad Sharma v, State of Assam, (2015) 9SCC 461 of the State and hencea State’ within the meaning 12. The court observed thatthe testis not cies 180m is created but why it has been brought into existence. ‘The question whether the judiciary comes under the word ‘State or not was considered by Supreme Court Supreme Court did not express any definitive opinion on the ‘matter It sid that even ifthe Courtis considered within the meaning of ‘State’ a writ under Article 32 cannot be issued 10 2 High Court agains its judicial orders. The Supreme Court ‘opined that such judicial orders cannot be said to violate the fandamental rights. ‘Supreme Court categorically held that courts while acting on judicial side, ae not ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution. When the cours actin purely administrative capacity then they may attract the writ jurisdiction against their administrative actions. Thus, after this decision of the postion is amply clear that courts while acting on judicial side are not ‘State’ but they may attract the trappings of ‘State’ when they act in administrative capacity. FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: GENERAL a] o o ‘Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1SCC 248 M. Nagarajv. Union of India, AIR 2007 SC71 ‘Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of ‘Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 Behram v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 123 The Supreme Cour observed that fundamental rights represent the basic values cherished by the people of India and they protect the dignity of an individual and create conditions in which every human being can develop his personality to the fullest extent. ‘The Supreme Court has held that the Constitution has confirmed the existence of fundamental rights and given them protection, Individuals possess certain basic human rights independently of any Constitution by reason of the fact that they are humans. ‘Supreme Court held that fundamental rights represent basic values entiched by the people of India. It is to preserve ‘and protect certain basic human rights against the interference ofthe State. The object isto ensure inviolability of certain ‘sential rights against political vicissitudes. ‘Supreme Court darfied that person cannot waive his Fund. mental Rights. This option is not avaiable to him. These Bashesher Nath v. Income Tax Commissioner, | rights have hot only been enshrined in the Constitution AIR 1959 SC 149 ‘Ramesh Sanka v. Union of India (2019)38CC 589 for persona interest bt also for benefits of entire society. ‘Writ uoder Article 32 not maintainable for enforcement of personal contractual rights RIGHT TO EQUALITY =| o ‘State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, AIR 1952SC75 Supreme Court held thatthe expression ‘Equal Protection of Laws isa corollary tothe expression ‘equality before law’ and itis difficult to imaginea situation in which the violation of the equal protection of law will not be violation of equality before aw. Scanned with CamScanner rea een ee eS | | | | | | | |CODE 2 OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE GENERAL PRINCIPLES 5 Shivjew Singh v. Nagendea Twat AIR 2010 SC 2261 2 (1) Mowuy. ‘Superintendent Special Jail, Nowgong, Assam, (1971) 3SCC936 (2) Saptawana v. State of Assam, (1972) 4SCC(N) 945 ae (3) Naga people's movement of Human : righ vy. Union ‘of India, (1998) 2 SCC. 109. > Exra-Judicial Execution Victim Families ‘Assn. v. Union of India, (2016) 14: SCC 536 Provisions ofthe Code ae tobe interpreted in gy of recognized principles of construction that “le meant for doing substantial jusice —tley Supreme Court held that though the provisions ofqy are not applicable in certain districts ofthe Stateof Nays itonly means that the rules of Cr.P.C. would nots - the authorities would be governed by the substances rales. ‘Other enactments which prescribe procedure would orig affected by the CrPC if such statute specifically provide the applicable procedure and derogetes from the Cade POWER OF COURTS 2. Sharad Hiru Kolambe v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 18SCC718 > Gagan Kumar v. State of Punjab, (2019)5SCC 154 >. Premnath v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1599 2 Gokarau v. Rangaraja, AIR 1981 SC1473 2 Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v, Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC.443 Amesh Kumar v, State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC273 Default sentence must be in excess of or in addition tothe substantive sentence. Concurrent running of defiult sentence inter seor with substantive sentence is not permisible ~ | The Supreme Court held that it is a mandatory legal que ‘ment to specify whether sentences awarded to an accused convicted for two or more offences, would run concumeny cor consecutively. ‘A civil judge cannot be invested with the powers of Additional Sessions Judge unless he is appointed as Additional Sessions Judge under Section 9 of the Code Judgments pronounced by Sessions Judge cannot be challenged on the ground that his appointment was subsequently held to be invalid. REST of balancing individual ih fnehand andindvided ‘and responsibilities on ee No arrest can be made in 2 routine mannet on 27° allegation of commission of an offence made es person, No rest shouldbe made without reasonable ise reached after some investigation as to the ge and bona fide of a complaint anda reasonable ™ both as to the person's complicity and evo" need to effec arrest. ipso ‘A peton ace of fence punishable wis ment for aterm which may be less than fine which may exiend to seven years with oF ee cannot be arrested by the police unless mentioned in Seton 4h) have bes. ASE Scanned with CamScannerCLICK HERE TO BUY THIS BOOK AVAILABLE ON AMAZON https://amzn.to/2Wn4zrrBeen wad LerSecirs Con Leos state of Natyana 9 Wreech Kuenat, ir0i OLD e 2 papeeler Kunst 0 Sate AUP, (WAG SL ah herta Narr ¥ State A Maharashtra, (AN2 LL 6 2 Anesh Kurnas y Sate A Vist, AL TT Cnerby wo wie 500108 gyms tet. Sa ‘hare sey a tes von Cavedy tan eons even cress nes tts canes. Coney a phoca senha resrsen sh scree in tarts wnagied with concn a thn yor rsczem of the comet. h pervom canbe ste bahoce the vont “The segpsetatiens A FUR 20 arse of scouted pervim ate two nee nid thas accused person aust be informed lay Venpsarien rhe sith be onticaly eataice, + we face Ricans were Goresed me to ascmatcally arrest where 2 case os tegimened under Section 491A IPC and also in cases where eres is parishable with imeprivonment for aterm which may be bess than veven year or which may extend 107. “Thay ave to satshy Caemanives soot the necessity for arrest sees toe asd down in Seton 41, Cr. PC. 2 Inakes Mehan Cowan 1, hath Uiarandal, CNT AIL, 2 Hanah Charutra v. Charidra Klin, 09D) LL 2 Yanumabal v. Avantran bt VIA LD, Savtabren v, State of Giuprat, SDD LMI 2 Dr Sagan kannar tanerpe vate A Wen Bengal and An, Ca byyead No(s) 230288 deeded om SDNY D, Vehusarayy v.22 Vatchiataraunah, enc ANS ‘fires 2nd ienprisonnent means deprivation of the most preven rigst of an individual Therefore, the Courts have to ip eceeziey c2xeis behets issuing nomrballble warrants Just as lctenty is precious for an individual so is the interest of the 1 sieey in rezinecining law and order. Both are exremnely sens atans Son the eset of a clized sociery. Nov-ballable ot sbenld be issued to bring a person to Court when seroenons of bailable wasrants would be unlikely to have the desized result. This could be when: () tis reasonable to believe that the person will not _ohuntatly appear ia Const; or (i), The police authorities are unable to find the person to serve hisn with a sesnmon; oF (i) Sis considered that the person could harm someone if Provisions contained in Sections 125128 ae spplicable to all porvons belonging to all vith personal law of the: ‘Thee terra ‘wife’ means legally sun dain soaintenance ‘Supreme Court held that a wife, who has been divorced by the husband, on the ground thatthe wife has deserted him, ‘nentited to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Godse of Crisninal Procedure. ‘Woman who isin marriage like relationship, though not Iegally married, can claim cece spaalinele niet unt ta i ere hatuse ofa Scanned with CamScannerReantand) > Vijay Manohar v. AIR 1987 SC 1100 3D Chharurbiny Sita Ba, (2008) 2500.16 "Reema Salkan v. Sumer Singh Salkan, (2019) 12SCC 303 ee | Daug! aradnark Case a be of legal age to marry, (0) They must be otherwise qulifed to enter iy 3 (They must martiagss (a) They must have voluntarily cohabited for 53 Sitio [oO pes oftine__——___** ner whether (mastied or not) Would sho bea ie ep The phase "unable o maintain hers?” would lable to the deserted wife whi mean tha she was ig with meansava ieaMgband and would not tke within elf eb the wile after desertion to survive somehoy For fuliling tre spirit of beneficial legslaton offen 125 CxPC strict proof of marriage is not required, Anita Thakur v. State of J&K, (2016) 15 SOC 525 2 HIN. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, AIR 1955 SC 196 2 Habib v. State of Bihar, (1972) 4SOC773 [INVESTIGATION (®) formation of opi 5 collected the accused has committed the offence O15 The purpose of FIR is : (toset the criminal law in motion (3) {o obtain ery information of thealleged ie informant and put into writing before | fence i his memo? L_— bs Pariksha Manthan Scanned with CamScannerRowntand Ls 1D State of UP. v. Raghuvir, 2018) 3SCC732 D__ Stareof MP. v, Chhaakki Lak, (2019) 12 SCC 326 ‘Satpal v, State of Haryana, (2018) 6SCG610 Latesh v. State of Maharashtra, 2018) 3 SOC 66 Sunil Khengade v, State of Maharashtra, (2016) 19 8CC773 2 Motiram Padu Joshi v, State of Maharashtra, Qos) 9scc as 2. Soma Bhai v, State of Gujarat (1973) 3 SCC 114 o Patai alias Krishna Kumar v. State of Ustar Pradesh, AIR 2010 SC 2254 o State of Haryana v, Bhajan Tal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 ‘2. Lalita Kumari v. Govt. of Utar Pradesh, 2013 (13) SCALE 559 annlinark Cave Laws Delay in lodging FIR is normally viewed with suspicion because of possibility of concoction and courts subject the evidence with close srutin FIRis not an encyclopedia requiring every minute deta of cecurtence tobe mentioned therein. First informa ion report need not necessarily contain details of each and every injury sustained by the deceased Omission as to the names of assailants or witnesses may not atall times be fatal to the prosecution ifthe FIR is lodged without delay. Even a telephonic message ifit may constitute FIR. discloses a cognizable offence In order for the information to be qualified as an FIR there must be something in the nature of complaint or accusation regarding commission of cognizable offence. A cryptic mes- age recording an occurrence cannot be termed as an FIR. The word ‘information’ in Section 154 is not qualified by the term ‘reasonable’, By omitting the word ‘reasonable’ and ‘credible’ the intent of legislature is clear that no discretion is given to the police to lodge the FIR. Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is needed in such situation. However, in certain types of cases preliminary inquiry can be conducted before registration of FIR. These cases aren 1. Matrimonial/family disputes 2 Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar v. Union of India, (2018) 10S0C443, 2 Gajanan Dashrath Kharate v, State of ‘Maharashtra, (2016) 4 SCC604 &e Mukesh v. State of NCT of Delhi, (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 673] 3 Damoduprasad Chandrikaprasad v, State of Maharashtra, (1972) 1 SCC 107 2 Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119 registration of FIR may beheld in monisl/family disputes. Preliminary ito verify the veracity of information information discloses any butalso about the part pl incident and name of witnesses. FIR is an important document and it sets the criminal law in motion It is no ive pi ie. evidence of the fats recorded init FIR can be used to corroborate the information under ‘Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act (Evidence Act) or to sontradict under Section 145 of Evidence Actif the infor. ‘mantis called as witness atthe time of tal. Manthan, Scanned with CamScannerF ‘Singh v. Election Tribunal, ‘AIR 1955 SC-425 ee “Salem Advocates Bar Association (Dv. Union ‘of India, AIR 2005 SC 3353 Westaily Dkhar v. Sehekaya Lyngdob, (2015)4S0C292 “Mahobar Lal v. Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962.SC 527 o ‘Ram Lal and others v. Salig Ram and others AIR 2019 SC 729 o Jai Jai Ram Manohar v. National Building “Material Supply, AIR 1969 SC 1267 Prem LalaNahata v. Chandi Prasad Sikaria, ‘AIR 2007 SC 1247 2 State of Madras v. CP. Agencies, AIR 1960 SC 1309 > State of UP. v. C.B. Mishra, AIR 1980SC591 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDUR, GENERAL PRINCIPLES [ites dined ofa juse amp construction of provisions should sn too should be construed liberllyand en Pade pe not be taken up. ‘sho The Preamble ofthe Code states thar hoogy is two fold; (1) to consolidate and (2) tg, bi ofteg, relating to the procedure to be followed inna’ * procedure designed to ficiltatejustceand ns not apenal enactment for punishmentand pong In the areas to which the Code does ater a in such areas shall be guided by spirit of the Coie Codes exhaustive on the matters special dei ver, the legislature is incapable of contempaing Hed circumstances that may arise in civil litigation thee regard to those circumstances the court hinheesng to.act according to principles of justice, ety néged conscience. Such inherent powers ofthe cout ise Section 151 of the Code: Court has observed that iregulariyinte report of the Local Commissioner appointed rs! investigation cannot be a ground for dismisafaciat ‘A party cannot be refused relief merely bcasof net mistake, negligence, inadvertence or even infcinsl rules of procedure. Hast Asia Shipping Co, ce 2 South Bast Asia Shipping Co. Ltd. v.. Nav a 7 ors, which wi it terprises Pen L ‘Cause of action’ is a bundle of acts itr Coes Zed, (1936)38CR405 | spoleablevothem, es paises the defendant. 2 Shankar v. Chandrakant, (1995)3S0C413 i ich dee ol tie acto cof Apreliminary decree is one #hi oo liabilities of the parties. ering “Asaf pe ‘ worked out in further proceediné® 7 gs ‘enquiries pursuant to preliminary °°" ssl. are fully determined and final So cai ‘al Scanned with CamScannerReventarnd Landmark Case Laws Dhani Ran v, Lala Sri Rar, (1980)2 SCC 162 o "Renu Devi. Mahendra Singh, (2003) 10SCC 200 o ‘Deep Chand v. Land Acquisition Officer, AIR 1994 SC 1901 Shiv Shakti Cooperation Housing Society v, Swaraj Developers, AIR 2003 SC.2434 o > Phoolchand v. Gopal Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1470 A dectecholder need not necessarily be plinuiff. A person who is not a party to the suit but in whose favour an order apubleof execution hasbeen made isalyoa dectee holler The ditlerence between preliminary decree and final ectee les in its purpose. A preliminary decree declates the rights and liabilities of the parties and leaves the actual result to be workedt cout fora later stage. Final dectee determines the rights of the decree finally and decree is passed in accordance with such determination, A decision on a matter of administrative nature is not a decree. In order to determine whether an order of the court isa decree or not court must take into account the pleadings of the parties and the proceedings leading upto the passing of an order. Circumstances under which an order is madeshould also be taken into account. There is nothing in the Code which prohibits the passing of more than one preliminary decrees if circumstances justify the same and where it is necessary to do so. > Sital Prasad Saxena v. Kishori Lal, Since passing of preliminary decree is only a stage prior to AIR 1967 SC 1236 passing of final decree, ifn appeal preferred against a preliminary decree succeeds, the tinal decree automaticaly falls, to the ground as there will be no preliminary decree to support it. 2 Rachakonda Venkar Rao v. R. Satya Bai, ‘eis a settled law that more than one final decree cat be passed. AIR 2003 SC 3322 ‘2. Hansraj Gupta v. Official Liquidators of Dehradun-Mussorie Electric Tramways Co. Ltd., AIR 1933 PC63 & Pandurang ‘Ramchandra ¥. Shantibai Ramchandra, AIR 1989 $C 2240 2) Lucy Kochuvareed v. P. Mariappa Gounder, AIR 1979 SC 1214 o Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, AIR 1999 SC 3381 ‘The term ‘suit’ has not been defined in the Code, The Supreme Court held that ‘Suit’ meansa civil proceeding instituted by the presentation of a plaint a Liability to pay mesne profits goes with the actual possession and enjoyment of the immovable property. But, where the plaintiff's dispossession can be regarded as.ajoint or concerted act of several persons, each of them who ‘participates in the commission of that act would be liable for mesne profits even though he was not in actual possession, In judgment the whole process of reasoning has to be set out in deciding the case one way or the other. It must not merely say ‘suit decreed’ or ‘suit dismissed’. ~ | A decree passed without jurisdiction is a nullity. Supreme ‘Court held that a decree passed without jurisdiction isa nullity. A defect of jurisdiction strikes atthe very authority of the court and it cannot be cured even by the consent of the | Parties TEE : Pariksha Manthan : Scanned with CamScannerReo rate of MP, AIR 1969 SC78. Kamla Mills v. State of Bombay, AIR 1968 SC 1942 Sammon (nia) Ld, Hakam Singh v AIR 1971 SC740 Shivnarayan (D) by ERs v, Maniklal (D) by Ls 2019(1)R Abdulla Bin Ali v. Galappa, AIR 1985 SC577 S. Hasnuddin v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 404 LIC v. India Automobiles, AIR 1991 SC 884 Most Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Marthoma, AIR 1995 SC 2001 > Shashi Prakash Khemka (Dead) through LRs. v. NEPC Micon (Now called NEPC India Led.) & Ors.,(2019) SOC Online SC 223 70 0BC)91/2019 2 Shiv Kumar v. Municipal Copporation, (1993) 3800 161 2 Most Kev. P-M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mat Marthom, A1R.1995 $C 2091 2 Jitendra Nath v. Hinpire India and Ceylone Tea Co., AIR 1990 SC 255 sent aned Landmark Case Laws Every presumption is madein fvouy op cout, Movsionofexchsionofjyigg 2 ust be strictly construed. In cage gf 2" the courts will lean in favour offutiadinin ‘When two or more courts have jur diction tg, an agreement by the patties to gu bait tothe anyone of such court tothe exon gee binding anit The Supreme Cour interpreted Seon yp Civil Procedure and observed that, a sun f* immovable property or properties situates diffe cours may eins inany en loca limits of juridcton, any portion of an lone or more properties may be situated Tye of word "portion of the property” in Ses beundestod in limited nd seiner portion of one property situated in jurisdiction oe The juisdietion ofthe court has tobe daideign allegations made by the plaintffin the pit anne the defendantin the wrines, Tepe, in jur} Pei, ion Weer, ‘When a court of limited jurisdiction has jurisicionto decide only a particular dispute it has urisdicéon acme collateral issue only prima facie and thejurisdicion fase ecide stich issue finally isnot taken aay. efuse to entertain a suitifitis ofthe description mentioned in the Section 9. | Th Supreme Court baer hat tenet ‘court is completely barred in matters in respect of wtih po hhas been conferred on the National Company Le Tite which are not only civil but of civil natures fe Atuitis sid to be impliedly bated when general principles of law. Where a specific rem iby et 4 statute, it thereby deprives the person state | termed of any other form than that sven bd De ata fen an Pariksha Manthan Scanned with CamScannerevent ead Landnsth Cle Lams Opa! Thasee ¥. Sachin AIR 15 80.803 ” ‘Court aid down following principle with repand to the deter ‘mination of jurisdictions 1 Accurtcanbebeld to haveuradicion to decide a particule ‘matter if the court is competent to try the suit and at the ‘ame time it has jurisdiction to pase the order sought, Jurisdiction of a court must include thy ‘must include the power to hear and decide the ques Y nin issue, 2 SRATP ¥ Moradimsy Singh Anerson having grievance of civil nature hava right to nniute BWSCTSs a civil suit unless its cognizance is expresly or impliedly barred. ‘Supreme Court laid down the following guidelines to. decide whether a right to religious office would bea right or civil o natured 1, Assuit for declaration of religious honours simpliciter will not lie. 2 Suitto establish one’s right to an office ina temple and honours, privileges ete attached to that office will be ‘maintainable, 3. Thecondition for existence of office is that the holder of the office should be under a legal obligation to discharge the duties attached to the office. Section 20 is designed to ensure that the defendant should notbe put to trouble and expense of travelling long distance in order to defend himself, Section 20 isa residuaty section and covers all the cases not dealt in by Sections 15-19. ‘The policy underlying Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedures that when the case has been tried by a courton ‘merits and the judgment has been rendered, it should not be liable to be reversed purely on technical grounds, unless it has resulted in failure of justice. If the objections as to territorial ‘or pecuniary jurisdictions are not taken at the earliest possible ‘opportunity then it cannot be allowed to be taken ata Union of India v. Ladfu Lal jain, AMR 1983 SC 1681 o (Om Prakash Agrawal v. Vishan Dayal Rajpoot, (2019)14S0C > Sneh Lata Goel v. Pushplata, (2019)3SCC5%4 |’ Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that ‘an objection as to the want of teritoral jurisdiction does not goto the root of the jurisdiction. It does not constitute inherent lack of jurisdiction, Hiralal v. Kalinath, AIR 1962 SC 199 ‘There isa difference between inherent lack of jurisdiction and ‘mere lack of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction, Inherent lack of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter. An objection regarding the lack of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction is merely technical and does not go to the root of the matter, TRANSFER OF SUITS: > Durgesh Sharma v. Jayshree, (2008)9SCC648 | The power under Section 24 docs not authorize a High Court to transfer any suit, appeal et from a court subordinate to that High Court to a court not subordinate to that High Cour. Pariksha Manthan Scanned with CamScannerRecentand Landmark Case Laws EEE ‘Bank v. Chemical Construction, > Indian Overscas ‘AIR 1979 SC 1514 2. Jitendra Singh v. Bhanu Kumari, ‘AIR 2008 SC 2987 The power to transf, Power to transfer may caution and circumspection °° te court while deciding eo” 2™inge conflicting interests: (1) en !2%™m the forum and (2) the por ht fair trial = Balance of conveniencelnyy a suit. Balance of con plaintiff alone nor ofthe deg Further, convenience of wither” of the suit, and, theeo, til having regard tothe nature points involved inthe suit na convenience are relevant factors . Cons Wwenienceis nj meen gy Section 24 does not prescribe any grou transfer of case It merely gives adneen eS court. The court is required to issue ¢ 0 Anetta before directing the transfer. RES SUB JUDICE & RES JUDICATA Ls 2 Indian Bank v. Maharashtra State Coop. Marketing Federation, (1998) 5 SCC69 2 Radha Devi v. Deep Narayan, (2003) 1100759 2 Pukhaj D.Jain v. G. Gopal, AIR 2004 SC 3504 Since rule under Section 10 appiestotheialea Aot the institution it does not preclude team, Passing interim orders such as grant ofisjuain, appointment of receiver ete. The test for applicability of Section 10 sched ina previously instituted suit would opente ssi tthe subsequent suit. [fit isso, the subsequatsit: stayed. | The object of Section 10 is to prevent the cours os jurisdiction from simultaneously trying to pol ‘of the same matter in issue. The dec ‘contravention of this section is not anulityssite>* 2 National Institute of MH. & N.S.. v. C Parameshwara, AIR 2005 SC.242 > Satyadhyan Ghosal y. Deorjin Debi, AIR 1960SC 941 eee 2 Workmen v. Board of Trustees, Port Trust, AIR 1978 SC 1283 2 Datyao v. State of U.P, AIR 1961 SC1457 > Wtikar Ahmed v, Syed Meharban Ali, AIR 1974 $C 749 | ral of procedure. Se id apply only if both the suits. The whole subi ect at part of rule of law. A matter may be rs jude co-defendants also ifthe followin theres deny rest > There must bea conflict of"® : and co-defendants; q : Pariksha Manthon “ Scanned with CamScannerCLICK HERE TO BUY THIS BOOK AVAILABLE ON AMAZON https://amzn.to/2Wn4zrr