Recent Updates:

Appeal – Appellate Court – Has not analyzed submissions/arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, while concluding the judgment – The first appellate Court is required to discuss/analyze the submissions made by the learned counsel for the  appellants.     (2018-3) Punjab Law Reporter

  •         Appeal - Accident - Claimants were travelling in the truck as a gratuitous passengers - Death of another passenger in the truck - Award - Insurance company filed appeal - That the driver did not have a valid driving licence - Plea that the passenger in a truck was not entitled to make the insurer liable was not taken up as an argument - Appeal dismissed - Review of the judgment taking up a plea of liability but the review application was dismissed - Present appeal on issue of liability on the ground that the claimant was travelling in an insured's truck as a gratuitous passenger - The parties in this case are different and a bar of res judicata which will be appropriate if adjudication were between the same parties or when a common judgment had been delivered between the same parties will not be applicable - Any amount that has been paid by the Insurance Company to the claimants shall not be pressed for recovery - The additional amount now assessed shall be recoverable from the driver and owner - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 171 - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) S. 11. (176) P.L.R.
  • Appeal – Appellate Court – Has not analyzed submissions/arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, while concluding the judgment – The first appellate Court is required to discuss/analyze the submissions made by the learned counsel for the  appellants.     (2018-3) Punjab Law Reporter
  • Appeal – Appellate Court – Has not analyzed submissions/arguments of learned counsel for the appellants, while concluding the judgment – The first appellate Court is required to discuss/analyze the submissions made by the learned counsel for the  appellants.     (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •         Appeal - Court held that if he is competent to file the suit, then he is competent to file the appeal - If it is found to be lacking, it would be decided by the trial Court and the Court held that this argument is not much relevant for the decision of the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC. (177) P.L.R.
  •         Appeal - Court in appeal is competent to examine correctness and legality of each and every order passed by the trial Court while hearing the appeal except an order examined by this Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction - However, the petitioners (appellants) are not entitled to file a fresh application for the same relief that has been dis-allowed by the trial Court. (182) P.L.R.
  •         Appeal - Cross-objection - Needless to say that cross-objections are in the nature of cross appeal and ought to have been registered and numbered separately, though ought to have been decided along with the main appeal - Not decided - Judgment and decree - Set aside - Case remanded. (174) P.L.R.
  • Appeal – Delay of 26 days – Condonation of delay – Application dismissed – Paramount consideration of the Court should be to do the substantial justice and not to apply the strict principles in the matter of condonation of delay - There is distinction between inordinate delay and a delay - Here the appeal was not barred by any delay of number of years but was only of 26 days which in my view ought not to have been opposed by the respondents muchless should have been pragmatically considered by the Court below.    (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •         Appeal - Filed by an incompetent person is no appeal in the eyes of law and, therefore, whether a formal written objection is taken or not.  (182) P.L.R.
  •         Appeal - Is a continuation proceeding and the pendency of an appeal must be taken as pendency of the case which had not become final. (177) P.L.R.
  •         Appeal - It is not made out that some prayer was made to the first Appellate Court in writing and only the written prayer is required to be made to the Appellate Court for staying the hearing of the appeal uptill decision of the application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, that has been filed by the petitioner before the trial Court - Revision is not maintainable - He should approach the first Appellate Court by moving application in this regard for staying the hearing of the appeal till the disposal of application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act.  (174) P.L.R.
  •         Appeal - Lower Appellate Court was not obliged to return the findings or its observations simply because such an argument was raised in the grounds of appeal - There is no obligation on the part of the Court to decide such an issue unless lawyer renders the proper assistance to the Court to give its decision on those points after going through the record and determining the correctness thereof - It is not for the Court itself to find out what the points for determination can be and then proceed to give a decision on those points - In case, counsel for the parties are not able to render any assistance, the Court may decline to entertain the petition.  (178) P.L.R. 
  •         Appeal - Mother of the deceased in the claim application was impleaded as performa beneficiary respondent - No appeal filed by mother - Appeal for enhancement filed by widow and son of the deceased - Amount enhanced by Permanent Lok Adalat - When mother of the deceased had not even knocked at the court for enhancement of her compensation, she was not entitled for any share from their enhanced compensation - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) S. 166 - Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 (39 of 1987).  (179) P.L.R.
  •         Appeal - Observations in the judgment makes it apparent that the court has made inconsistent and contradictory observations - Court was not clear in its mind if the appellant has filed the appeal against the order vide which his application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC was dismissed or he has filed the appeal challenging correctness and legality of the ex-parte<D> judgment and decree - No doubt the appellate Court in the opening lines has stated of giving thoughtful consideration to the respective contentions of learned counsel for the parties, but as a matter of fact, the Court has not referred to any of the contentions raised by the learned counsel - Once the Court has not made any reference to any contention, the observation made - `That no other point has been argued before me' looses its relevance and significance - Case remanded - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 9, Rule 13.   (182) P.L.R.
  • Appeal – One of the defendant had died – As the appeal could be filed by some of the defendants and reversal of the entire judgment could be sought by some of the defendants - Such being the position, the case of the appellants is not adversely affected on this count.  (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •         Appeal - Second Appeal - A substantial question of law is not required to be framed if the High Court decides to dismiss the second appeal at an admission stage - Only in a case where the second appeal is admitted or is decided finally by allowing the same, a substantial question of law is required to be framed by the High Court. (2016)3 P.L.R.SC 226
  • Appeal – Was not maintainable because it was only against a finding and not against the decree.  (2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  • Appeal – While filing an appeal, all interim orders passed by the Court can be challenged and are subject to scrutiny of the learned Appellate Court. No fresh application was required to be filed.   (2018-3) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  •         Appeal and review  Death sentence -  Supreme Court pronounced judgment on 15.05.2015 dismissing appeal under Article 136 confirming the death penalty and within six days of the dismissal of the criminal appeals, learned Sessions Judge issued the death warrants on 21.05.2015 -  This is clearly impermissible and unwarranted for various reasons - First and foremost reason is that the convicts have not exhausted their judicial and administrative remedies, which are still open to  them even if their appeals in the highest Court have failed affirming the imposition of death penalty - Those appeals were filed via the route of Article 136 of the Constitution - However, law gives such persons another chance, namely, to seek review of the orders so passed, by means of filing of review petition - It is to provided under Article 137 of the Constitution - The limitation of 30 days is prescribed for filing such review petitions - We have to emphasize at this stage that in case of convicts facing death penalty, the remedy of review has been given high procedural sanctity - Review petition in a case of death sentence shall be heard in the open court by giving an opportunity to the review petitioner to make oral submissions, unlike other review petitions which are decided by the Court by circulation in Chambers - Not only this, such a review petition is to be heard by a Bench consisting of minimum three Judges - Constitution of India, Article 136, 137.  (2016)3 P.L.R.SC 692
  • Appeal  - Dismissal of the main appeal itself for non-compliance of the direction to deposit the amount as a condition for grant of stay - Act specifically casts a duty upon the Appellate Tribunal to pass order on appeal, as it thinks fit i.e. either confirming, modifying or setting aside the direction, decision or order appealed against -  It is to be done after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties to the appeal -  It, thus, clearly implies that appeal has to be decided on merits -  Appellate Tribunal, which is the creature of a statute, has to act within the domain prescribed by the law/statutory provision -  This provision nowhere stipulates that the Appellate Tribunal can direct the appellant to deposit a certain amount as a condition precedent for hearing the appeal - Condition of deposit of 10% of the penalty was imposed insofar as stay of penalty order passed by the CCI is concerned – Not deposited  -  At the most, stay could have been vacated - In case of non-compliance of the said condition, the consequence would be that stay has ceased to operate as the condition for stay is not fulfilled -  However, non-compliance of the conditional order of stay would have no bearing insofar as the main appeal is concerned - Appellate Tribunal, had no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal itself -  National Company Law Appellate Tribunal - Competition Act, 2002, S. 53B(3).  (S.C)(2018-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER
  • Appeal  - Intra-court appeal  - In an intra-court appeal, on a finding of fact, unless the appellate Bench reaches a conclusion that the finding of the Single Bench is perverse, it shall not disturb the same - Merely because another view or a better view is possible, there should be no interference with or disturbance of the order passed by the Single Judge, unless both sides agree for a fairer approach on relief - Once the learned Single Judge having seen the records and come to the conclusion that the industry was not functioning after January, 1995, there is no justification in entering a different finding without any further material before the Division Bench. (2016)3 P.L.R.SC 38
  •         Appeal/Revision - Mere filing of an appeal/revision shall not operate as stay of proceedings nor shall execution of an order be stayed on the said ground - Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) order 41(5). (176) P.L.R.
  •         Appeal/Revision - Mere filing of an appeal/revision shall not operate as stay of proceedings nor shall execution of an order be stayed on the said ground - Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) order 41(5). (176) P.L.R.
  •         Appeals - As the officers in the office of Advocate General are supposed to be well-versed in least law, they are not supposed to do mechanical exercise by filing appeal in each case where the file is sent to them - State will take some corrective measures - To avoid unnecessary litigation - Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894). (176) P.L.R.
  •         Application for placing on record original documents - Documents already produced in notarized form - Prayed only for placing all these documents on the Court file and he has contended that he does not want to prove these documents by bringing witnesses etc. - If these documents are placed on the record, no prejudice will be caused to the defendants - Rather, it will help the Court to decide the case substantially and finally. (177) P.L.R. 


Register SCeJ  Free Updates*

Supreme Court e@journal

Subscribe or take a 4 week FREE trial 

Note: Please fill out the fields marked with an asterisk.