Proxy Counsel rightly not allowed by NCDRC

Lawyers cannot appearance unless authorized  by AOR or the litigant

Surendra Mohan Arora v. HDFC Ltd & Ors, 

dated April 25, 2014 in CIVIL APPEAL NO.4891 OF2014

Passing an order different from what is pronounced in open court

Kushalbhai Ratanbhai Rohit & Ors. Vs. The State of Gujarat, 

Section 362 Cr.P.C. puts an embargo to call, recall or review any judgment or order passed in criminal case once it has been pronounced and signed. Unless it is pronounced AND signed, the said provision will not trigger.

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.453 of 2014 dt. May 6, 2014

Order 2 Rule 2 : How to Apply

12. The Courts in order to determine whether a suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2 must examine the cause of action pleaded by the plaintiff in his plaints filed in the relevant suits (See: S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore & Ors., (2007) 11 SCC 75). Considering the technicality of the plea of Order 2 Rule 2, both the plaints must be read as a whole to identify the cause of action, which is necessary to establish a claim or necessary for the plaintiff to prove if traversed. Therefore, after identifying the cause of action if it is found that the cause of action pleaded in both the suits is identical and the relief claimed in the subsequent suit could have been pleaded in the earlier suit, then the subsequent suit is barred by Order 2 Rule 2.

Coffee Board Vs. M/s. Ramesh Exports Pvt. Ltd., Judgment dated  May 9, 2014 in CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5527 OF 2014 

Court has no power to condone delay in filing an application challenging arbitration award

M/s Engineer Builder & Associated v. Union of India, (2014) 2 SCALE 278

Benefit of judgment in service law extended also to non-appealing party

Karri Ram Babu v. Chairman, State Level Police Recruitment Board, Hyderabad, (2014) 6 SCALE 24

Judgment dated July 11, 2013 in C.A. No. 11387/2013

 

One of the persons affected has not travelled to this Hon'ble Court. If the same is owing to financial constraint, justice shall not be denied to him on that count. For doing complete justice in this cause, we make it clear that the benefit of this judgment shall be available to the third petitioner also, in case he is interested.

Government allowed to change its policy

MP Mathur & Ors v. OIC & Ors, 2006 (13) SCC 706

 

Once the public interest is accepted as the superior equity which can override individual equity, the principle would be applicable. If there is a supervening public equity, the Government would be allowed to change its stand and has the power to withdraw from representation made by it which induced persons to take certain steps which may have gone adverse to the interest of such persons on account of such withdrawal. Merely because the resolution was announced for a particular period it did not mean that the Government could not amend and change the policy under any circumstances.

 

See also : Rishi Kiran Logistics decided in April, 2014  (by Sikri J)

 

Scope of Letter of Intent

A letter of intent merely indicates a parties intention to enter into a contract with the other party in future. AIR 2006 Supreme Court 871 (Dresser Rand)

 

Also see: Rishi Kiran Logistics P Ltd v. Board of Trustees of Kandla Port Trust, Judgment dated April 21, 2014 in Civil Appeal No. 4655 of 2014 [ 2014 (6) SCALE 4]

Permission to file SLP

Jasbir Singh v. Vipin Kumar Jaggi, (2001) 8 SCC 289 at page 298

Appeal has been preferred from an order passed in proceedings to which the appellant was not a party and the appellant has not challenged the order by which his application for intervention was rejected. The Supreme Court still granted permission to file SLP.

 

Permission to file SLP: When to be granted | Standing

Ram Nandan Singh v. AG Office Employees Coop. House Construction Society Ltd., (2007) 14 SCC 102

 

13. The appellants are members of the Society. They have been pursuing their cause before the High Court. They were impleaded as parties in the letters patent appeal. Not only in the capacity of interveners but also as persons aggrieved, they are, therefore, entitled to file petition for grant of special leave. The preliminary objection in regard to maintainability of the appeal raised by Ms Bagchi is rejected

Same matter pending in SC, HC not to exercise jurisdiction

Chhavi Mehrotra v. Director General, Health Services, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 434:

"It is a clear case where the High Court ought not to have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 where the matter was clearly seized of by this Court in a petition under Article 32. The petitioner was eo nomine a party to the proceedings before this Court. It is an unhappy situation that the learned Judge of the High Court permitted himself to issue certain directions which, if implemented, would detract from the plenitude of the orders of this Court. The learned Single Judge's perception of justice of the matter might have been different and the abstinence that the observance of judicial propriety, counsels might be unsatisfactory; but judicial discipline would require that in a hierarchical system it is imperative that such conflicting exercise of jurisdiction should strictly be avoided. We restrain ourselves from saying anything more."

When the same dispute is subject matter before the Supreme Court, the High Court cannot entertain writ petition in respect of the same

Union of India v. Jaiswal Coal Co. Ltd., (1999) 5 SCC 733 

Intervention

Ram Nandan Singh v. AG Office Employees Coop. House Construction Society Ltd., (2007) 14 SCC 102 at page 107

12. In Ravi Rao Gaikwad case [(2006) 5 SCC 62] , this Court observed that the purpose of grant of application for intervention is to entitle the interveners to address arguments in support of one or the other side.