Ambala lawyer's

Ambala lawyer's lawyer's practising in Ambala

01/10/2022

*Framing of Issue--Additional Evidence*--After the amendment of plaint, permitting incorporation of new plea based on documents, Trial Court was required to frame a distinct issue on the validity and correctness of the said document; *2022(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2043*

*Framing of Issues--Adverse Possession*--Plaintiff filed suit for possession--Defendant claimed that their uninterrupted possession has ripened into ownership--Nothing wrong in framing the issue with regard to adverse possession--However, unless the defendants files a counter claim, they will not be able to get a decree on adverse possession; *2022(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2103*

*Industrial Disputes--Termination*--Any condition, giving authority to the employer to terminate the service of the work-charge employee, has to be read as subject to the provisions of the I.D. Act; *2022(3) Law Herald (P&H) 2070*

*Registration--Refusal to Registration*--Denial of Ex*****on of Document--Procedure to be followed discussed; *2022(3) Law Herald (SC) 1937*

*Registration--Refusal to Registration*--Denial of Ex*****on of Document--Where an individual admits their signature on a document but denies its ex*****on, the Sub-Registrar is bound to refuse registration; *2022(3) Law Herald (SC) 1937*

28/06/2017

—Unregistered vehicle—Insurance company liable to pay.;; National Insurance Company Ltd.
v. Jaspal Kaur @ Jaspreet Kaur @ Jass: 2017(2) Law Herald (P&H) 1475 : 2016 LawHerald.Org 2606

28/09/2016

*Evidence* - Whether admission made by defendants No.2 and 3 in favour of plaintiff binds defendants No.1 and 4 or not? - The admission made by a party may operate as an estoppel but not as a conclusive proof - Such an admission may be relieved and binding upon other party if they have community in interest i.e. common interest and was made prior to the controversy - Any such admission made during the controversy may not be binding on the other party. (182) Punjab Law Reporter

28/09/2016

✳ (2016)4 PLRSC 753
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 – Invocation of Bank Guarantee - Injunction of encashment of an Unconditional bank Guarantee - Veracity and truthfulness of defence of respondent cannot be opined on at the present juncture, and will have to await the final outcome of the civil suit - Party issuing the Bank Guarantee has not levelled any allegations of the commission of a flagrant fraud, for engineering the invocation of the bank guarantees - No submissions have been advanced qua an irreparable injury or some irretrievable injustice - Adopt the principles laid down in U.P. Cooperative Federation Ltd. v. Singh Consultants and Engineers (P) Ltd. (1988) 1 SCC 174, and in Vinitec Electronics Private Ltd. v. HCL Infosystems Ltd. (2008) 1 SCC 544 in respect of grant/refusal of an injunction of an unconditional bank guarantee, and keeping in mind the terms and conditions, more particularly of the contractual conditions we are satisfied that the courts below were not justified in injuncting the invocation of the three bank guarantees.

28/09/2016

‼️Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956) Section 18(2) - If marriage is subsisting, then wife is entitled to claim maintenance from her husband under Section 18 of the 1956 Act - In case the marriage is not subsisting, then relief can be claimed only under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage 1955 Act as a permanent alimony, even if the marriage is dissolved by a decree of divorce, whereas under the 1956 Act, divorced wife is not entitled to claim maintenance under Section 18(1) of the 1956 Act - Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (25 of 1955).
(2016-4)PUNJAB LAW REPROTER 232 (P&H) (OCTOBER PART)

28/09/2016

☀ Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 16, Rule 2 - Plaintiff – Evidence closed - Witness had to be sent back unexamined for the purpose of their cross examination at the request of respondents counsel - Plea has been taken by plaintiff’s counsel that the said witness has turned hostile and in those circumstances, plaintiff was left with no option but to seek permission of the Court to cross-examine him - In these circumstances, it was duty of the Court to compel presence of the witness - There was no question of deposit of process fee and diet money for summoning the witnesses at the initial stage
because plaintiff had been able to produce the said witness - Order closing evidence - Set aside.
(2016-4)PUNJAB LAW REPROTER 278 (P&H)

28/09/2016

💢 Attachment of Salary
(2016-4) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 23
CPC Section 60(1)(i) - Salary to the extent of 1/3rd of the first one thousand rupees and 2/3rd of the remainder can be attached - Decree is not a decree for maintenance, but is a decree passed in a suit for recovery and the provisions of Section 60(1)(i) CPC shall be operative

28/09/2016

💿 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) Section 166, 163 - Deceased – Aged 15 years - 10th Class Student - Rs.5,00,000/- awarded as compensation. (2016-4) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 60
---

28/09/2016

❗Act of God - Electrocution - Storm
(2016-4) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 36
Act of God - Electrocution - Storm in the area - Appellant-Board was actually negligent due to which deceased lost his life - Tortious liability can be fastened on a service provider, even in the absence of negligence.

26/03/2016

10.03.2016 -📕 Reported in (2016)3 PLRSC 520
Indian Penal Code - “shall also be liable to fine” - Clause “shall also be liable to fine”, in the context of Indian Penal Code may be capable of being treated as directory and thus conferring on the court a discretion to impose sentence of fine also in addition to imprisonment although such discretion stands somewhat impaired as per the view taken by this Court in the case of Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India (1999) 7 SCC 409 - But clearly no minimum fine is prescribed for the offences under the IPC nor that Act was enacted with the special purpose of preventing economic offences as was the case in Chern Taong Shang v. S.D. Baijal (1988) 1 SCC 507 - Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Act, 1948, Section 85(a)(i)(b), is an economic offence and therefore the Legislature has not only fixed a minimum term of imprisonment but also a fixed amount of fine of five thousand rupees under Section 85(a)(i)(b) of the Act.
SUPREME COURT

16/03/2016

💥Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (V of 1908) Order 8, Rule 1 and Rule 10 - Non-filing of written statement - Defence struck off - Court has discretionary power to allow the defendant to file written statement even after expiry of period of 90 days provided in Order 8 Rule 1 of CPC - Moreover, the said provision being rule of procedure has to be held to be directory and not mandatory in nature - This provision has to be applied with some flexibility and not with rigidity or inflexibility - Rules of procedure are handmaid to the administration of justice and are meant to meet the ends of justice and not to thwart or obstruct the same.
(2016-2) PUNJAB LAW REPORTER 1 P&H

Address

Ambala
134003

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Ambala lawyer's posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Ambala lawyer's:

Shortcuts

Share

Category