Basic Purpose Of Order XVIII Rule 17 Of CPC Is To Enable Court To Clarify Position, Not To Fill Lacuna In Evidence: Calcutta High Court
1 month ago

Basic Purpose Of Order XVIII Rule 17 Of CPC Is To Enable Court To Clarify Position, Not To Fill Lacuna In Evidence: Calcutta High Court

Live Law  

Justice Sugato Majumdar of the High Court at Calcutta, while dismissing an application under Order XVIII Rule 17 read with Section 151 of CPC, 1908, ruled “Unexplained lethargy and long delay in production of document which is otherwise available cannot be cured at this belated stage. Bhoomi Minerals Ltd. due to distressed sale of the company in view of failure of a Memorandum of Understanding between the parties and a counter-suit to the said recovery suit filed in 2012 by the intended 1st buyer and party to the said MoU which is being heard conjointly by the Court. Such application for re-calling the witness was necessitated owing to discovery by the intended 1st buyer, at this juncture, of a list of share-holders of the company from the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs. It is also clarified that this power is not intended to be used to fill up omissions in the evidence of witness.” If the application is allowed, same would just lead to filling up of lacuna and omission in evidence – “Unexplained lethargy and long delay in production of document which is otherwise available cannot be cured at this belated stage.” Case: SRI NIRMAL KANODIA & ORS.

High Court Witness Application Company Calcutta Cpc Mou Contra Stage Buyer 1St Long Delay Suit Filed Intended Such Application Order Xviii Rule This Belated Stage Unexplained Lethargy Order Xviii Rule 17  intended  witness  1st  application  xviii  suit  filed  company  order  buyer  enable  rule  evidence  high  court  position  purpose  stage  lacuna

History of this topic

Delhi High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Litigant For Filing Contempt Plea Against CCI To Stall Authority's Ongoing Investigation Against It
3 weeks, 2 days ago

Delhi High Court Slaps ₹1 Lakh Cost On Litigant For Filing Contempt Plea Against CCI To Stall Authority's Ongoing Investigation Against It

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. In reality, while the petitioner ostensibly seeks contempt proceedings, it is attempting to secure a judicial review of the investigation methodology through the back door, which cannot be entertained.” Background: The petitioner-company, Forech India Pvt Ltd, was investigated by the CCI regarding alleged existence of a bid-rigging cartel in the …

Proceedings Under Section 13 Of Companies Act, 2013 Can’t Be Questioned In Proceedings Under Section 7 Of IBC: NCLAT Delhi
1 year, 4 months ago

Proceedings Under Section 13 Of Companies Act, 2013 Can’t Be Questioned In Proceedings Under Section 7 Of IBC: NCLAT Delhi

Live Law  

The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi Bench, comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Shri Barun Mitra and Shri Arun Baroka, while adjudicating an appeal filed in Ishan Singh v Spaze Towers Pvt. The Financial Creditor filed an application in the Section 7 petition, praying to take on record application filed by the Corporate Debtor under Section 13 of the …

Order XXI CPC | Failure To Raise Objections Before Proclamation Of Sale Not Bar To Challenge An Irregular Sale: Kerala High Court
1 year, 4 months ago

Order XXI CPC | Failure To Raise Objections Before Proclamation Of Sale Not Bar To Challenge An Irregular Sale: Kerala High Court

Live Law  

The Kerala High Court recently laid down that the failure to raise objections before the proclamation of sale as prescribed under Order XXI Rule 90 CPC does not preclude the appellant from challenging the sale if the mandatory procedures under Order XXI Rule 64 were not complied with. Order XXI Rule 64 CPC deals with the power of the court …

Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Stranger To Suit Can Challenge Sale If Entitled To Share In Rateable Distribution Of Assets: Kerala High Court
1 year, 5 months ago

Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Stranger To Suit Can Challenge Sale If Entitled To Share In Rateable Distribution Of Assets: Kerala High Court

Live Law  

The Kerala High Court on Wednesday clarified that a person, including a stranger to the suit apart from the judgment debtor or those claiming derivative title from the judgment debtor, is competent to challenge a sale of property under Order XXI Rule 90 of the CPC if their interests are affected by the sale.A Division Bench of Justice Anil K …

Inadvertence To Produce Document Not Substantial Cause To Invoke Order XLI Rule 27 CPC: Jammu & Kashmir High Court
1 year, 9 months ago

Inadvertence To Produce Document Not Substantial Cause To Invoke Order XLI Rule 27 CPC: Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Live Law  

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has recently ruled that inadvertence on the part of a party to produce a document before the Court cannot be construed as a substantial cause within the meaning of Rule 27 of Order XLI of the Civil Procedure Code to allow application for production of additional documents. Order XLI R 27 of …

Stage Of Defendant Producing Documents Under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC Distinct From Tendering Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 25: Sikkim High Court
1 year, 9 months ago

Stage Of Defendant Producing Documents Under Order VIII Rule 1A(3) CPC Distinct From Tendering Additional Evidence Under Order XLI Rule 25: Sikkim High Court

Live Law  

The Sikkim High Court on Monday underlined the difference between Order VIII Rule 1 A CPC which deals with timeline of filing written statement by the defendant and producing relevnant documents on record, and Order XLI Rule 25 CPC which paves way for a party to tender additional evidence before the trial court after new issues are framed by the …

Order XVI Rule 1 CPC | Opportunity To Examine Vital Witness Can't Be Denied Only Due To Failure To Show Reason For Omitting Name In Witness List: Bombay HC
1 year, 11 months ago

Order XVI Rule 1 CPC | Opportunity To Examine Vital Witness Can't Be Denied Only Due To Failure To Show Reason For Omitting Name In Witness List: Bombay HC

Live Law  

The Bombay High Court held that failure to show reason for not including witness names in the witness list under Order XVI Rule 1 of CPC alone cannot be a reason to disallow the plaintiff from examining witnesses who are vital for determining the dispute. Justice Sandeep V. Marne, while upholding trial court’s order allowing the plaintiff to examine two …

Is Order XXV Rule 1(1) CPC Mandatory? Delhi High Court Larger Bench To Decide
1 year, 11 months ago

Is Order XXV Rule 1(1) CPC Mandatory? Delhi High Court Larger Bench To Decide

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court has referred the issue relating to the interpretation of Order XXV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to a larger bench. Observing that appears to be a "clear inconsistency" in the views expressed by different coordinate benches of the high court on whether the proviso to Order XXV Rule 1 of CPC is mandatory …

Order XVI Rule 1 CPC Confers Wider Jurisdiction To Cater A Situation Where Party Failed To Name A Witness: J&K&L High Court
2 years, 3 months ago

Order XVI Rule 1 CPC Confers Wider Jurisdiction To Cater A Situation Where Party Failed To Name A Witness: J&K&L High Court

Live Law  

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that Sub-rule of Rule 1 of Order XVI CPC confers a wider jurisdiction on the Court to cater to a situation where the party has failed to name the witness in the list or the party is unable to produce him or her on his own under Rule 1A and in …

Order XLI Rule 25 CPC | Party Can't Amend Plaint In Court's Limited Jurisdiction To Determine Additional Issues Framed By Appellate Court: Sikkim HC
2 years, 4 months ago

Order XLI Rule 25 CPC | Party Can't Amend Plaint In Court's Limited Jurisdiction To Determine Additional Issues Framed By Appellate Court: Sikkim HC

Live Law  

The Sikkim High Court recently dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution seeking permission to amend plaint and file a written statement to the counter-claim filed by the respondents, pending proceedings before the Civil Court under Order XLI Rule 25 CPC.The provision provides that an Appellate Court may frame certain additional issues for examination and refer them. …

Order 18 Rule 1 CPC | Defendant May Be Asked To Lead Evidence First If Case Set Up By It Is Such That Proving It Would Decide All Issues In Suit: Delhi HC
2 years, 5 months ago

Order 18 Rule 1 CPC | Defendant May Be Asked To Lead Evidence First If Case Set Up By It Is Such That Proving It Would Decide All Issues In Suit: Delhi HC

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court has held that the Court has the authority to give necessary directions under Order 18 Rule 1 CPC on the procedural aspect as regards which party will lead evidence first. Justice Mini Pushkarna said, "The unequivocal position that emerges is that if the defendants set up a case, which if decided, would decide the issues raised …

[Order XXII Rule 3 CPC] Delay In Filing Application For Substitution Of Legal Heirs Must Be Sufficiently Explained: Delhi High Court
2 years, 5 months ago

[Order XXII Rule 3 CPC] Delay In Filing Application For Substitution Of Legal Heirs Must Be Sufficiently Explained: Delhi High Court

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court has held that applications under Order XXII Rule 3 of CPC for substitution of legal heirs, or under Order XXII Rule 9 of the Code for setting aside abatement of proceedings must be considered liberally. The issues that arose for consideration in this case were– whether the consumer complaint case filed by the respondents had abated …

Purchaser Of Suit Property Cannot File Application Under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC Objecting Execution Of Decree By Decree Holder: Supreme Court
2 years, 6 months ago

Purchaser Of Suit Property Cannot File Application Under Order XXI Rule 97 CPC Objecting Execution Of Decree By Decree Holder: Supreme Court

Live Law  

The Supreme Court observed that purchaser of the suit property from the decree holder is not entitled to file an application under Order XXI Rule 97 of Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 objecting execution of the decree by the decree holder.BackgroundIn this case, a Suit filed by late Shri N.D. Mishra was decreed by the Trial Court restraining the …

Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Judgment On Admission Can Be Passed If Defence Set Up By Party Is So Weak That It Is Impossible To Succeed: Delhi HC
2 years, 8 months ago

Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Judgment On Admission Can Be Passed If Defence Set Up By Party Is So Weak That It Is Impossible To Succeed: Delhi HC

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court recently affirmed a judgment on admission, passed by the court below in exercise of its discretionary powers under Order XII Rule 6 of CPC, on the ground that the defence set up was such as to make it impossible for the party to succeed.In this regard, Justice V Kameswar Rao observed,"Order XII Rule 6 of the …

No Call To Have Expert Witness To Testify To Use Of Identical Mark In Registered Trademark Infringement Or Passing Off Cases: Delhi High Court
2 years, 9 months ago

No Call To Have Expert Witness To Testify To Use Of Identical Mark In Registered Trademark Infringement Or Passing Off Cases: Delhi High Court

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court has observed that in a case of infringement of registered Trade Marks or passing off, similarity of the marks used is to be considered and that there is no call to have an expert witness to testify to the use of an identical or similar Trade Mark. "A perusal of the impugned judgment would reveal that …

CPC Order VIII Rule 1| Belated Filing Of Documents By Defendant Not Permissible Without Leave Of Court: Delhi High Court
2 years, 11 months ago

CPC Order VIII Rule 1| Belated Filing Of Documents By Defendant Not Permissible Without Leave Of Court: Delhi High Court

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court recently reiterated that "provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 CPC make it clear that a document which ought to be produced in Court by the defendant under this rule, but, is not so produced shall not, without the leave of the Court, be received in evidence on his behalf at the hearing of the suit". It …

CPC - Application To Amend Admissions Can Be Entertained Even After Judgment Is Reserved Under Order XII Rule 6 : Delhi High Court
3 years, 5 months ago

CPC - Application To Amend Admissions Can Be Entertained Even After Judgment Is Reserved Under Order XII Rule 6 : Delhi High Court

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court has observed that a Court is permitted to entertain an application to amend an admission made in pleadings even after reserving judgment on the basis of admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the CPC.A single judge bench of Justice Asha Menon was dealing with petitions challenging the order dated 4th August 2020 wherein the Trial …

Common Order For Summoning In Different Cases Cannot Be Passed When Parties Are Unrelated: Delhi High Court
4 years, 1 month ago

Common Order For Summoning In Different Cases Cannot Be Passed When Parties Are Unrelated: Delhi High Court

Live Law  

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday made it clear that a common order for summoning Respondents, in different cases filed by a common Petitioner, cannot be passed when the Respondent parties are unrelated. The order was quashed on two counts: The parties so summoned, were unrelated; in one of the cases, the offence alleged against the accused related to dishonour …

Discover Related