Search The Civil Litigator

Monday, April 15, 2013

GO whose quashing is sought must be produced before the court

Any government order sought to be challenged before the High Court, must be produced before it. It is improper to quash an order which is not produced before the High Court.
(1986) 4 SCC 667
(2009) 8 SCC 492
 

Sunday, April 14, 2013

Relationship between Section 125 CrPC and Section 18 of HAMA

"Proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is summary in nature and intended to provide a speedy remedy to the wife and any order passed under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by compromise or otherwise cannot foreclose the remedy available to a wife under Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act." 

Nagendrappa Natikar Vs. Neelamma dated 15-3-2013 available at
http://www.supremelaw.in/2013/03/nagendrappa-natikar-vs-neelamma.html

Power of Attorney Holder cannot depose in lieu of the person who attorney s/he is

It is a settled legal proposition that the power of attorney holder cannot depose in place of the principal. Provisions of Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC empower the holder of the power of attorney to  "act" on behalf of the principal. The word "acts" employed therein is confined only to "acts" done by the power-of-attorney holder, in exercise of the power granted to him by virtue of the instrument. The term "acts", would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power-ofattorney holder has preferred any "acts" in pursuance of the power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for acts done by the principal, and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of a matter, as regards which, only the principal can have personal knowledge and in respect of which, the principal is entitled to be crossexamined. (See: Vidhyadhar v. Manikrao & Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1441; Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v. Indusind Bank Ltd., (2005) 2 SCC 217; M/S Shankar Finance and Investment v. State of A.P & Ors., AIR 2009 SC 422; and Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512).