Alternative Remedy

A Full Bench of this Court in Chandrama Singh Vs. Managing Director, U.P. Cooperative Union, Lucknow and others, 1991 (2) UPLEBC 898 has held that when a litigant wants to bye pass statutory alternative remedy, he must plead and place necessary facts in the writ petition to show that alternative remedy is not efficacious and speedy

Obiter dicta is also binding precedent - when

Obiter whether precedent- 2007(5)scc 428, 2012(30)lcd 1066.

Not necessary to hear the Respondent on a restoration application of a case dismissed in default where the Respondent was also absent

2012 (2) AWC 1408

Drawing of adverse inference from non production of documents

http://www.supremelaw.in/2012/07/union-of-india-vs-ibrahim-uddin-anr.html

 

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1374 of 2008

 

Union of India v. Ibrahum uddin, July 17, 2012

 

ssue of drawing adverse inference is required to be decided by the court taking into consideration the pleadings of the parties and by deciding whether any document/evidence, withheld, has any relevance at all or omission of its production would directly establish the case of the other side. The court cannot loose sight of the fact that burden of proof is on the party which makes a factual averment. The court has to consider further as to whether the other side could file interrogatories or apply for inspection and production of the documents etc. as is required under Order XI CPC. Conduct and diligence of the other party is also of paramount importance. Presumption or adverse inference for non-production of evidence is always optional and a relevant factor to be considered in the background of facts involved in the case. Existence of some other circumstances may justify non-production of such documents on some reasonable grounds. In case one party has asked the court to direct the other side to produce the document and other side failed to comply with the court's order, the court may be justified in drawing the adverse inference. All the pros and cons must be examined before the adverse inference is drawn. Such presumption is permissible, if other larger evidence is shown to the contrary. 

Order obtained by fraud can be reviewed / recalled even absent any specific power

2012 (3) AWC 2930
Ashok Kumar Singh v. State of UP (CMWP 27152 of 2008) (Sunil Hali J)

Dominus litis

Nasiruddin versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal AIR 1976 SC 331

http://www.indiankanoon.org/doc/660181/

Counsel in Review Petition must be the same as the one in the original petition

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr. v. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr., I (1997) CLT 338 (SC)=AIR 1997 SC 1005

In case a ground raised has not been considered by the court, review is the appropriate remedy.

In case a ground raised has not been considered by the court, review is the appropriate remedy.

 

Narmada Bachao Andolan V (2011) SLT 36

Order 7, Rule 11 - to be decided only on the basis of plaint

The law has been settled by this Court in various decisions that while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court has to examine the averments in the plaint and the pleas taken by the defendants in its written statements would be irrelevant. [vide C. Natrajan vs. Ashim Bai and Another, (2007) 14 SCC 183, Ram Prakash Gupta vs. Rajiv Kumar Gupta and Others, (2007) 10 SCC 59, Hardesh Ores (P) Ltd. vs. Hede and Company, (2007) 5 SCC614, Mayar (H.K.) Ltd. and Others vs. Owners & Parties, Vessel M.V. Fortune Express and others, (2006) 3 SCC 100, Sopan Sukhdeo Sable and Others vs. Assistant Charity Commissioner and Others, (2004) 3 SCC 137, Saleem Bhai and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, (2003) 1 SCC 557]. The above view has been once again reiterated in the recent decision of this Court in The Church of Christ Charitable Trust & Educational Charitable Society, represented by its Chairman vs. M/s Ponniamman Educational Trust represented by its Chairperson / Managing Trustee, 2012 (6) JT 149.

Court will not give directions to fill vacancy or do regular selection

2012 (4) SCC 642