Possessory Suit U/S 6 Specific Relief Act Maintainable In Civil Court Even If Parties Have Licensor-Licensee Relationship: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, seeking restoration of possession after alleged dispossession otherwise than in due course of law is maintainable before the Civil Court even if the parties stand in the relationship of licensor and licensee. The Court held that the existence of a licensor-licensee relationship does not by itself...

Advocate Commissioner's Report Only Assists Court, Does Not Determine Rights Of Parties: Rajasthan High Court

It does not relieve either party of obligation to establish its case by leading admissible evidence, Court said.

Foreign Advocates Cannot Examine Witnesses Before Court-Appointed Advocate Commissioners: Kerala High Court

Court observed recording of evidence forms part of practise of law in India, from which foreign lawyers stand excluded.

Bombay High Court Upholds Member's Expulsion From Mumbai Press Club For Facilitating Meeting Of Bhima-Koregaon Accused

The Bombay High Court has refused to stay the expulsion of a member from the Mumbai Press Club, holding that it is the prerogative of the Club to determine what conduct brings the institution into disrepute. The Court observed that where the Managing Committee has acted within its jurisdiction and followed the procedure prescribed by the Club's bye-laws, the Court cannot substitute its...

Unamended Pleading Loses Efficacy Once Amendment Is Allowed; Party Cannot Capitalise On Its Own Default: J&K&L High Court

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that once an application for amendment is allowed and a direction is issued to file a fresh application within specified time, the unamended pleading loses its efficacy for adjudication.Assigning the reason to the observation, the court underscored that permitting reliance on the unamended version would defeat the very purpose of...

Issue Going To Root Of Adjudicating Authority's Jurisdiction Doesn't Automatically Warrant Local Investigation: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the appointment of a Commissioner for local investigation under the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and does not become mandatory merely because the question it is sought to prove goes to the root of the adjudicating authority's jurisdiction. The Court held that a commission...

Rejection Of Amendment Plea Doesn't Bar Party From Raising Legal Contentions Arising From Existing Pleadings: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that rejection of an application to amend pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not bar a party from advancing pure questions of law arising from the pleadings already on record at the stage of final hearing. It held that where the proposed amendment merely restates legal pleas already discernible from the pleadings and...

Does Refusal By Family Members To Accept Court Notice Amount To Valid Service? Orissa High Court Answers

The Orissa High Court has reiterated that when an addressee refuses to receive summons/notice and the same is thus affixed to the outer door or some other conspicuous part of his house, the Court can presume its valid and sufficient service upon him as per illustration (f) of Section 114 of the Evidence Act read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Order V Rule 9(5) as well as Rule...

Appellate Court Can Enhance Interest Rate On Award Under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC Even Without Cross-Objection By Plaintiff: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that a First Appellate Court is empowered under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to enhance the rate of interest awarded by the trial court even in the absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the plaintiff. The Court observed that where the issue under Order 41 Rule 33 is specifically raised before the appellate court, the parties...

Commercial Courts Act | Documents Being Voluminous No Excuse For Their Belated Production : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday (July 9) held that a mere 'voluminous nature' of the evidence does not constitute a "reasonable cause" for their belated production under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. “…it is well established that the plaintiff when leading evidence, is expected to not only produce all documents but also properly anticipate the questions that may be put to its witnesses...

Party Can't Subsequently Cure Foundational Defects To Validate Institution Of Suit: Telangana High Court

The Telangana High Court has held that parties cannot seek to remove or cure foundational defects at a subsequent stage in order to validate the institution of the Suit. [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 98]In doing so the court set aside a trial court order which had permitted the plaintiff to ratify an earlier resolution, in order to replace the original basis of authority for institution of the Suit...

Stamp Duty | Collector's Spot Inspection Without Notice To Party Doesn't Invalidate Proceedings If No Prejudice Caused: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a spot inspection conducted by the District Magistrate in stamp duty deficiency proceedings without issuing notice to the party is an irregularity, and not an illegality, where no prejudice is caused to the party. The Court held that under Rule 7(3) of the U.P. Stamp (Valuation of Property) Rules, 1997, it is not mandatory for the Collector to conduct...