CLJ

06/12/2021

Install the Application and share to install it further

05/12/2021

If you haven't installed Capital Law Judgment app yet, then install it now. and use its features.
You can keep the judgments tagged according to the case of your clients, which save your lot of time.
You can also change the judgment in any other language.

install the application and share to install it further.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.capital_law.judgement

03/12/2021

Install the Application from Google Play Store

04/11/2021

04/11/2021

Please, install the application and share to install it further. Click on the link given below to install the App.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.capital_law.judgement

04/11/2021

With your love and cooperation , we are introducing this application.

29/10/2021

CAPITAL LAW JUDGMENT
(A Unique Fortnightly Civil Law Journal Of Supreme Court & Delhi High Court)

D H C

Important Points :-
(1) No litigant can assume that, as a matter of right, delay in taking steps would be condoned, because procedure is handmaiden of substantive justice.
(2) Only where limitation has expired during lockdown and even extended period, which can be allowed in discretion of court, also expired in lockdown period, a party can claim that no delay has occurred as Supreme Court had enlarged limitation periods prescribed by Order dated 23rd March, 2020.

Head Note :-
BHARAT KALRA Versus RAJ KISHAN CHABRA (12-8-2021)

(A) Limitation Act, 1963—Section 5— Limitation—Condonation of delay—While it is true that power to condone delay is intended to advance substantive justice, nevertheless, procedure cannot be given a complete go by—Powers of court to condone delay is to be used in appropriate cases—No litigant can assume that, as a matter of right, delay in taking steps would be condoned, because procedure is handmaiden of substantive justice—Rights accruing to opposite party on account of delayed action need to be also kept in mind—Reasons given for explaining delay are of paramount importance and not length of delay—Shortness of delay alone ought not to suffice for exercise of discretion to condone it—Cogent and clear explanations have led courts to condone delay, even of five years in filing pleadings. (Para 13)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order VIII Rule 1— Written Statement—Limitation—Mere claim that further delay in filing written statement and reply was caused due to Covid-19 induced circumstances, as working of office of Counsel for petitioner/defendant could normalize only by middle of August, 2020, offers no explanation for delay occurring prior to lockdown and during partial opening of courts—In support of application only affidavit of petitioner/defendant has been filed, who could not have verified truth of plea taken of disruption in office of Counsel—There is no explanation for inaction of petitioner/defendant from 14th March, 2020 till actual date of filing of written statement and reply on 20th August, 2020—Had there been cogent reasons, entire period and not merely 120 days, could have been condoned—Only where limitation has expired during lockdown and even extended period, which can be allowed in discretion of court, also expired in lockdown period, a party can claim that no delay has occurred as Supreme Court had enlarged limitation periods prescribed by Order dated 23rd March, 2020—Trial Court rightly dismissed application under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC—Petition dismissed. (Paras 9, 14, 15, 17 and 18)

Result— Petition dismissed.

For Download Full Text Judgment
Click the Link Below :-

25/10/2021

CAPITAL LAW JUDGMENT
(A Unique Fortnightly Civil Law Journal Of Supreme Court & Delhi High Court)

D H C

Important Point :-
(1) Even in an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, enabling provision of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC could always be invoked if required on facts.
(2) Not mentioning correct provision is not fatal to application if Court has power to pass such an order.

Head Note :-
MRS KULAN RUKHSANA AMIN Versus GAURANG KANTH (10-8-2021)
Also cover as CPC Section 151
and Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 52

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151—Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 52— Impleadment in suit—Suit for declaration, possession, and permanent injunction—During pendency of suit, without prior permission of Court, title of Suit Property purportedly stands transferred by Defendants No. 1 & 2 in favour of Applicants—This amounts to a sale/transfer pendente lite—Such transferees, are representatives / assignees-in-interest of parties from whom they have acquired that interest—Doctrine of lis pendens would be applicable to such a transfer which, though ipso jure does not annul transfer, but any such transfer of right, title or interest is subservient to rights of parties in pending litigation, as eventually determined by Court—Rights and interest acquired by Applicants under Sale Deed would be subservient to Defendants No. 1 and 2s’ rights and they would be bound by outcome of present suit—Applicants being transferees pendente lite are vitally interested in result of suit, especially when Defendants No. 1 and 2 have transferred entire right, title and interest in Suit Property in their favour—Decree, if passed against Defendants No. 1 and 2, would be binding on them too—Final judgment in instant suit would affect rights of Applicants—Though Plaintiff is under no obligation to make a transferee lis pendens a party to suit, however, under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, an alienee pendente lite may be joined as party. (Paras 13, 15 and 17)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 151—Substitution—Suit for declaration, possession, and permanent injunction—It is for Plaintiffs to identify parties/persons against whom they have a grievance, and to implead them as Defendants in a litigation for necessary relief—Case of Plaintiffs pertains to a challenge laid to validity of a purported Sale Deed—To succeed in their claim, it is for Plaintiffs to decide whose presence they deem necessary—There is no merit in plea for substitution—However, even in an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, enabling provision of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC could always be invoked if required on facts—I.A. 7769/2021 and I.A. 7771/2021 allowed to limited extent of granting leave Subsequent Purchasers to be impleaded as Defendants No. 3 to 5 in suit, under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC—Relief with respect to substitution is denied. (Paras 20, 23 to 26)

Result— IAs Partly allowed.

For Download Full Text Judgment
Click the Link Below :-

13/10/2021

CAPITAL LAW JUDGMENT
(A Unique Fortnightly Civil Law Journal Of Supreme Court & Delhi High Court)

D H C

Important Points :-
(1) Even in an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, enabling provision of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC could always be invoked if required on facts.
(2) Not mentioning correct provision is not fatal to application if Court has power to pass such an order.

Head Note :-
MRS KULAN RUKHSANA AMIN Versus GAURANG KANTH (10-8-2021)

Also cover as CPC Section 151
and Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 52

(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151—Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section 52— Impleadment in suit—Suit for declaration, possession, and permanent injunction—During pendency of suit, without prior permission of Court, title of Suit Property purportedly stands transferred by Defendants No. 1 & 2 in favour of Applicants—This amounts to a sale/transfer pendente lite—Such transferees, are representatives / assignees-in-interest of parties from whom they have acquired that interest—Doctrine of lis pendens would be applicable to such a transfer which, though ipso jure does not annul transfer, but any such transfer of right, title or interest is subservient to rights of parties in pending litigation, as eventually determined by Court—Rights and interest acquired by Applicants under Sale Deed would be subservient to Defendants No. 1 and 2s’ rights and they would be bound by outcome of present suit—Applicants being transferees pendente lite are vitally interested in result of suit, especially when Defendants No. 1 and 2 have transferred entire right, title and interest in Suit Property in their favour—Decree, if passed against Defendants No. 1 and 2, would be binding on them too—Final judgment in instant suit would affect rights of Applicants—Though Plaintiff is under no obligation to make a transferee lis pendens a party to suit, however, under Order 22 Rule 10 CPC, an alienee pendente lite may be joined as party. (Paras 13, 15 and 17)

(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Order 22 Rule 10 read with Section 151— Substitution—Suit for declaration, possession, and permanent injunction—It is for Plaintiffs to identify parties/persons against whom they have a grievance, and to implead them as Defendants in a litigation for necessary relief—Case of Plaintiffs pertains to a challenge laid to validity of a purported Sale Deed—To succeed in their claim, it is for Plaintiffs to decide whose presence they deem necessary—There is no merit in plea for substitution—However, even in an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, enabling provision of Order 22 Rule 10 CPC could always be invoked if required on facts—I.A. 7769/2021 and I.A. 7771/2021 allowed to limited extent of granting leave Subsequent Purchasers to be impleaded as Defendants No. 3 to 5 in suit, under Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC—Relief with respect to substitution is denied. (Paras 20, 23 to 26)

Result— IAs Partly allowed.

For Download Full Text Judgment
Click the Link Below :-

08/10/2021

CAPITAL LAW JUDGMENT
(A Unique Fortnightly Civil Law Journal Of Supreme Court & Delhi High Court)

D H C

Important Point
Persons having clear title and possession, suing for injunction should not be driven to costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration.

Head Note
HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LTD. Versus DR. T.N. GROVER (22-4-2021)
Injunction—Grant of —Maintainability of suit for mandatory injunction in absence of relief of declaration—Where a cloud is raised over Plaintiff’s title, suit for injunction simplicitor cannot lie—Persons having clear title and possession, suing for injunction should not be driven to costlier and more cumbersome remedy of a suit for declaration—Court should use its discretion carefully to identify cases where it will enquire into title and cases where it will refer Plaintiff to a more comprehensive declaratory suit—Respondent/Plaintiff had innocently applied for taking part in a contest and was awarded third prize way back in year 2002—Appellants/Defendants herein by making a bald, vexatious and unsubstantiated statement in reply to legal notice are depriving Respondent/Plaintiff of prize won by him in year 2002—In order to prove that Respondent/Plaintiff had won fourth prize, onus was on Appellants/Defendants to prove authenticity of entire list filed on record, allegedly reflecting name of Respondent/Plaintiff against fourth prize, which they failed to do—If title of a property is itself under cloud, party would have to seek a declaration and relief of mandatory injunction simplicitor is not maintainable—In present case, title of Respondent/ Plaintiff clearly flowed from letter and there was no requirement to seek declaration—Appellants/Defendants instead of giving benefit of prize to Respondent/Plaintiff, have entangled him in a long-drawn litigation for over 19 years—Appeal and pending application dismissed with costs of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of Respondent/Plaintiff. [Specific Relief Act, 1963—Section 38] (Paras 27, 28, 32, 36 and 37)

Result— Appeal and Application dismissed with costs.

For Download Full Text Judgment
Click the Link Below